Not a popular top 5 I know but I stand by it.
Is Sampras salty that Djokovic also passed his slam tally?
- Thread starter powerangle
- Start date
Not a popular top 5 I know but I stand by it.
Tommy Haas
Hall of Fame
By the time Nadal is done and over with Roland Garros, Novak won't be at peak anymore. He might be able to win another RG after Nadal rides off into the sunset, but he'll be vulnerable at the other slams.
Sudacafan
Bionic Poster
He should be happy that decades will pass with nobody else except for the Big Three winning more than his 14 slams.
He maybe won’t see another player do that again in his lifetime.
EloQuent
Legend
Thanks, I corrected the typo
TheGhostOfAgassi
Talk Tennis Guru
Probably
Nothing wrong w that. He is only a human.
Nothing wrong w that. He is only a human.
ghostofMecir
Legend
A) He didn’t overestimate anything. At the time he was playing, winning thet many majors was an incredible, incredible achievement. We do not have the benefit knowing the future when we are living in the present.
B) How could he have “won a lot more than 14”? He might have been able to revamp and refers for maybe one more Wimbledon, but there were plenty of people who were better able to ha doe his serve by the time he was done. Hewitt was reading his serve as a 17 year old and controlling the pace off it better than anyone did amongst Pete’s generation. He didn’t have the physical movement to go side to side so he was serve volleying everything, was a step slow and was getting passed too often. His movment to his FH lessened as it does for all players and his footwork to his BH became sloppy and erratic.
Are you saying he could have fixed all this and kept on winning?
OR...are you saying he would have tried harder to win other slams in his prime as if he didn’t give everything thet he had? If so, thsts ridiculous.
Im(moral) Winner
G.O.A.T.
In 1998 he played too many MM tourneys to get the YE #1 instead of trying to win AO 99. Sad!
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
The ship has sailed for Novak to pass Fed. I would rather see someone else do it than Fed keep the recordSo, as long as Federer is not at the top, it is OK, eh?
Tennis_Hands
Banned
augustobt
Legend
what a MUG
Like I said it is pretty clear, even without the benefit of hindsight, numerous guys would have won 18-25 majors (Rosewall, Gonzales, Laver, Tilden, maybe Budge) had Open tennis been in place then. I am fairly sure Federer's 20 wouldnt even be the record today in that case. So yes it should have been evident 14 was not close to an insurmountable mark. Many knowledgeable people said that at the time, even if the dumb media, and apparently Sampas were oblivious. 14 was merely the first true mark in that he was the first great ever who gave his all to winning as many slams as possible (Emerson is not a great). Even Borg, Connors, Lendl, didnt skipping many slams throughout their careers.
As for the rest I do think Sampas had visible waning motivation from 98 onwards, and especialy 2000 onwards when he held the record. Many including commentators and other players said the same thing. No I dont believe he was visibly tanking, but is as he hungry as he could have been, definitely not. I dont know what he could have won, but if had a more realistic view how easily beatable 12-14 was, I think you might have seen a much hungrier Sampras in those later years. He still wouldnt win 20+ majors even then though, if that is what you mean, I agree.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Sampras admitted himself that he lost motivation after winning his last Slam at 2002 USO. Just couldn't face playing the tour anymore. I'm pretty sure his 14 Slam tally played a big part in that because if there had been a target still to chase I'm sure it would have motivated him to chase it. He and everyone else thought it would take a long, long time if ever for someone to exceed his Slam tally. Yet, within 20 years, no less than 3 players had done so. He certainly never saw that coming.
The best he could do at FO was to eat a bagel in his only SF appearance. Ofcourse, his assessment will be that this is impossible for the Big-3 to do, which is true especially at the stages of their careers that they are in.
LOL .. Imagine if Federer is somehow the runners up. He can collect his trophy and then hand over Nadal his championship trophy
It is absolutely a great mark even today. It was delusional to believe it was unsurpassable. Even Federer's current 20 is far from unsurpassable, it might not even survive this era, let alone 14. As I said there are atleast 4 guys who would have 18+ majors and the record would probably be something like 25 had Open Era tennis and the total focus on all 4 slams been in place earlier. For someone who prides himself in being such a student of tennis history as Sampras was (he was a HUGE fan of Laver and the old school greats, and a huge fan of the game) he of all people to be oblivious to this was baffling.
And done what?
He went slam less for 2 years and was getting beaten regularly by new generation. He could have played till 34/35 when Federer would have started his dominant run. You think Pete would have stood any chance.
Seems entirely arbitrary to remove the Australian Opens, why? the AO had a lesser field , 1970, 1972-1982 ` well before the careers of these 4 players
Fed 20 "majors" - 6AO = 14 Majors
VAMOS 16 "majors" - 1AO = 15 Majors
Djoker 15 "majors" - 7AO = 8 Majors
Pete 14"majors" - 2AO = 12 Majors
Major Titles:
VAMOS 15 (VAMOS !)
FEDR 14
Pete 12
Djoker 8
While this is true I think it is to show the point of how complicated it is to just disregard the Australian Open, even for past players, and the inconsistencies it causes.
I am one of those who does devalue the Australian Open for certain 60s and 70s players, but even I acknowledge the complications of the argument, and the possible inconsistencies it causes.
If he lost motivation after 2002 why did he go slamless for two years with all the motivation. IMHO Sampras treated 2002 USO as a last hurrah and decided to go out on a high. I doubt that he would have won any more with Federer already making lot of ground from 2003 onwards.
Ah so you were comparing those 4 with earlier players? but you would agree that the AO shouldn't be excluded when comparing between those 4, yes?
mikeeeee
Professional
Why? Was Peyton Manning on hand when Drew Brees broke his all time passing record? It's just a number and not even the highest slam total by a mile anymore
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Why do you want Nadal or someone else to get the record, if it is not Novak ?
The Fates themselves are surprised by how many players have surpassed Sampras so soon. https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/sampras-visits-a-palmistry-shop-in-2002.591765/
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
I like Nadal better than Fed
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Why ?
Tennis_Hands
Banned
As it currently stands, you either root for Djokovic to surpass Nadal, or root for Nadal to surpass Federer at the expense of Djokovic surpassing Nadal.
Whatever the individual slam record turns out to be after the Big 3 have wrapped up, it's more likely to be broken down the road than the cumulative slam count of the three players. Although they're not all from the same tennis generation, the productive portions of their careers have overlapped for more than a decade. 52 (or more) total slams from three players active at the same time is astounding, almost miraculous.
BGod
G.O.A.T.
I voted maybe but only in the sense that he's now going to be heavily relegated in all-time discussions. However when they were ranking the all-timers I think in 2013 or so he himself was very aware that Nadal could pass him so what's one more right?
I DO however think he's certainly caught off guard by all 3 being talked up as clearly ahead of him though in the general sense. I mean, Nadal after 2012 had 7-2-1-1 spread so the thought process was he might pass Fed but will be almost universally declared a clay court specialist who broke through a few times elsewhere. The 2 additional USOs and 3 more AO finals changes the narrative and now he's 3 up on Pete. Then comes Novak after 2011 grabbing all 4 Slams at once and now with the recent resurgence he's closer to Fed than Nadal so where does that leave Pistol Pete?
I think he'll be even more pissed though when Novak passes his #1 weeks mark and IF he gets a 7th YE. I truly believe Sampras will at least internally be immensely annoyed.
Because 14 was the record and Fed broke it. There wasn't anything inherently special about the 14 mark other than it was THE RECORD. So it doesn't surprise me in the least.
Let's also not forget (though many have) that in Laver's 1969 OE Calendar 3 of the Slams were played on grass and that the AO had 5 rounds and French 6. What Novak did is far greater.
I DO however think he's certainly caught off guard by all 3 being talked up as clearly ahead of him though in the general sense. I mean, Nadal after 2012 had 7-2-1-1 spread so the thought process was he might pass Fed but will be almost universally declared a clay court specialist who broke through a few times elsewhere. The 2 additional USOs and 3 more AO finals changes the narrative and now he's 3 up on Pete. Then comes Novak after 2011 grabbing all 4 Slams at once and now with the recent resurgence he's closer to Fed than Nadal so where does that leave Pistol Pete?
I think he'll be even more pissed though when Novak passes his #1 weeks mark and IF he gets a 7th YE. I truly believe Sampras will at least internally be immensely annoyed.
Because 14 was the record and Fed broke it. There wasn't anything inherently special about the 14 mark other than it was THE RECORD. So it doesn't surprise me in the least.
Let's also not forget (though many have) that in Laver's 1969 OE Calendar 3 of the Slams were played on grass and that the AO had 5 rounds and French 6. What Novak did is far greater.
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
Do you really want me to explain why I dislike Fed for the 1000th time?
Nadal is just a more likable person with a far better fanbase
Of course I'll root for Djokovic over Nadal, but let's face it. The writing is on the wall with Novak turning 32 soon and no easy Slams for him going forward.As it currently stands, you either root for Djokovic to surpass Nadal, or root for Nadal to surpass Federer at the expense of Djokovic surpassing Nadal.
Nadal has at least two more FOs in him, and provided Fed doesn't win another Slam, Rafa has a great shot at the record
This.
So Sampras is still ahead of Nole ?
What's the problem with his top 5 greatest of all time ?
heninfan99
Talk Tennis Guru
Djokovic made the pilgrimage to visit Pete as some of the younger champions have done.
Pete advised him on how what it takes to be the best so I think he's okay with hit.
He prolly regrets retiring and not trying to get a few more slams.
Pete advised him on how what it takes to be the best so I think he's okay with hit.
He prolly regrets retiring and not trying to get a few more slams.
Noleberic123
G.O.A.T.
How so? The top 3 players are clearly Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. In that order
Tennis_Hands
Banned
I am amazed at what you are saying.
If you truly are in it for the love for the sport and your player, it shouldn't matter to you who else achieves what, in a way that it removes your main preferences as you indicate here.
Why is it that important to you that Nadal surpasses Federer?
It is laughable to suggest that one fanbase is better than the other, but even if that was so, do you really think that the Nadal fanbase is better than the other way around?
BTW, with Novak being a full year younger than Nadal, he is in nearly identical position to attack Federer as is Nadal, especially given that he is in very dominant form right now. I also do not think that Nadal is "guaranteed" another two RGs. My prediction is that he will win between 0 and one titles from the next two editions there, and after that he will be 35, so you might be throwing your preferences out of the window for nothing.
The surface part is double edged, in 1969 there were only two surfaces but they were less homogenized.
Shorter draw at the AO, yes (and many Australian players as well). RG had 7 rounds (128 players) in 1969.
Anyway, Djokovic acknowledged himself that the CYGS was the ultimate tennis challenge, and that only Laver accomplished it [in the Open Era].
I'd think that in his eyes, Laver's CYGS has more prestige than his own NCYGS (let's not forget the pressure - even though hugely dominant, S. Williams failed mentally just before the last leg).
Anyway, if he were to achieve it this year, he'd have a six-in-row CYGS, putting him ahead of both Laver ("only" 4) and Budge (amateur tour during the split era).
Rabbit
G.O.A.T.
And yet, the ATP site shows the H2H for Laver/Rosewall as 13-7 Laver. True, there are 4 years between them, KR being older. But, could it be that as an amateur, Laver hadn't hit his stride? He certainly seems to have figured Rosewall out after he hit the tour. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love Ken Rosewall, but he didn't dominate Laver after Laver hit the tour.
When you extrapolate, you speculate and use conjecture. Both were great players, but in the head to heads, Laver dominated. Laver dominated the major count. Laver won 2 Grand Slams. (In my view, there is no such a thing as a CYGS. There is no such thing as a career GS. There is no such thing as a Martina Slam or a Serena Slam. There is the Grand Slam which is holding all 4 majors in the same calendar year. Just so we're on terms.
)Which is exactly why you cannot compare eras or name an absolute GOAT. Laver won 200 tournaments. He, unlike today's coddled pros, had to do what he did to earn a living. Much the same way Gerulaitis and flew from the Miami area during the Pepsi Grand Slam to play WTT in Los Angeles then flew back after the match to complete the tournament in Miami on the red eye.
I would answer only this. Who won the 1st US Open? Hint: it wasn't a pro. Arthur Ashe d Tom Okker (who turned pro in '68). Okker d Ken Rosewall in 4 sets in the semis. Ashe turned pro after the US Open in 1969. Point being, there were plenty of shamateurs playing in '68 and in '62.
Looking at Laver's 62 Slam, he beat Roy Emerson in the finals of the Australian, French, and US. Emerson was no push over and had his own record. Emerson has said that he didn't go pro because the competition wasn't as good, but he also said he was paid to play amateur. Add to that his desire to be a Davis Cup hero and he may well have had no reason to go pro. Laver beat Marty Mulligan at Wimbledon.
Along the way to the finals, Mulligan beat Dennis Ralston (a respectable pro later), Roy Emerson (who apparently retired during the match), Bob Hewitt (another name pro from the era), and John Fraser ( brother of Neal Fraser and admittedly a one-hit-wonder).
In my conclusion, there is no GOAT as the eras cannot be compared. I would give the nod to players of an era as being better than their cometition. I think those players are clearly Laver, Borg, Sampras, and Federer. Djokovic and Nadal are greats as well, but IMO they have not achieved the status of Federer.......yet. TBD
Rabbit
G.O.A.T.
To take that further, and lend credence to Borg's era, the clay and grass of the 70s played more disparately than today. That is to say the clay was slower and the grass was faster and more erratic. Pat Cash has said the grass at Wimbledon is as true as a hard court and plays nothing like the old grass. The bounces are higher. He also said that the clay at the French is faster and truer. The old clay was softer and slower. Add to that the pressureless balls they used and you have uber slow conditions compared to today.
The pros hated Forest Hills. The grass there was nothing like Wimbledon or the Aussie. It was terrible according to them. I believe I'm correct when I say that the Aussie also played much differently than Wimbledon. Add to that, there were no "warm up" tournaments to the majors as the tour was not as sophisticated as it is now and the majors didn't have the weight they do now. World Team Tennis was deemed a threat to the ITF in the 70s for goodness sake.
Agreed.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Nadal having a far better fanbase is debatable.
Sport
G.O.A.T.
There is still a logical possibility that Nadal wins 21 and Djokovic 23 or so. So he can like the idea of both surpassing Federer.As it currently stands, you either root for Djokovic to surpass Nadal, or root for Nadal to surpass Federer at the expense of Djokovic surpassing Nadal.
Enceladus
Legend
Pete handed the trophy to the AO 2014 final ceremony. Rafa had a chance at the 14th major title, but lost with Stan.
Not for me.Djokovic an Sampras for a start are better than Nadal in two out of 3 surfaces.This would be my top 5(Open Era):
1.Federer
2.Djokovic
3.Sampras
4.Nadal
5.Borg
In 1963 Rosewall still won the H2H against Laver 38-13. Starting in 1964 Laver dominated the H2H when Rosewall was in his 30s, but I think we can safely say that until including 1963 Rosewall was clearly the better player. So my 1962 argument should be solid. But don’t get me wrong, Laver was already very good then and it was a remearkable achievement. But for me he has “only” one real CYGS in 1969.And yet, the ATP site shows the H2H for Laver/Rosewall as 13-7 Laver. True, there are 4 years between them, KR being older. But, could it be that as an amateur, Laver hadn't hit his stride? He certainly seems to have figured Rosewall out after he hit the tour. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love Ken Rosewall, but he didn't dominate Laver after Laver hit the tour.
When you extrapolate, you speculate and use conjecture. Both were great players, but in the head to heads, Laver dominated. Laver dominated the major count. Laver won 2 Grand Slams. (In my view, there is no such a thing as a CYGS. There is no such thing as a career GS. There is no such thing as a Martina Slam or a Serena Slam. There is the Grand Slam which is holding all 4 majors in the same calendar year. Just so we're on terms.
Which is exactly why you cannot compare eras or name an absolute GOAT. Laver won 200 tournaments. He, unlike today's coddled pros, had to do what he did to earn a living. Much the same way Gerulaitis and flew from the Miami area during the Pepsi Grand Slam to play WTT in Los Angeles then flew back after the match to complete the tournament in Miami on the red eye.
I would answer only this. Who won the 1st US Open? Hint: it wasn't a pro. Arthur Ashe d Tom Okker (who turned pro in '68). Okker d Ken Rosewall in 4 sets in the semis. Ashe turned pro after the US Open in 1969. Point being, there were plenty of shamateurs playing in '68 and in '62.
Looking at Laver's 62 Slam, he beat Roy Emerson in the finals of the Australian, French, and US. Emerson was no push over and had his own record. Emerson has said that he didn't go pro because the competition wasn't as good, but he also said he was paid to play amateur. Add to that his desire to be a Davis Cup hero and he may well have had no reason to go pro. Laver beat Marty Mulligan at Wimbledon.
Along the way to the finals, Mulligan beat Dennis Ralston (a respectable pro later), Roy Emerson (who apparently retired during the match), Bob Hewitt (another name pro from the era), and John Fraser ( brother of Neal Fraser and admittedly a one-hit-wonder).
In my conclusion, there is no GOAT as the eras cannot be compared. I would give the nod to players of an era as being better than their cometition. I think those players are clearly Laver, Borg, Sampras, and Federer. Djokovic and Nadal are greats as well, but IMO they have not achieved the status of Federer.......yet. TBD
You are right that Emerson is a bit underrrated and would have won a few Slams even with Rosewall and Laver in the field. Also the old Pancho Gonzales could still be a small factor if there would have been Open tennis in the years before 1968.
All in all IMO nobody of all these players would have won 20 Open Slams, but maybe around 15 at most (Laver, Rosewall) and 5 at most (Emerson). Then add Gonzales and maybe Newcombe and almost all 60s Slams are awarded.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Noleberic123
G.O.A.T.
Sampras and Djokovic might be better but Nadal is greater. Ofc I doubt Nadal ends his career greater than Djokovic
For me, the main issue with the amateurs-pros split field... is simply that the field is split, and therefore each side's draws are "easier" than if it had been an Open era.
Pros slams can't fully compare with Open slams, due to the much shorter draws - top seeds often starting directly at QF - and also BO3 often until the QF or even the SF. Amateur slams can't fully compare because many top players had turned pro.
Thus, I wouldn't consider an Amateur CYGS has the same weight as an Open Era CYGS - it might be comparable to an Open Era NCYGS, but that's debatable (an OE NCYGS has an unified thus arguably stronger field, but there are four times more opportunities to win it compared to a non-OE CYGS). By the way, a "Pro CYGS" can't have the same meaning - only three tournaments instead of four (thus already much "easier"), shorter draws etc...
This means eras can't easily be compared... though, funny metrics could be attempted. For example, I could count an amateur Slam at roughly 50% of an OE Slam, and a pro Slam 75% of an OE Slam (also accounting lack of Australia Pro as a missed opportunity) - highly debatable of course. This would give Rosewall 17 "equivalent Slams", and Laver 14... most other conversion rates between amateur/pros and OE would still put Rosewall above Laver in this metric (excepted when weighting amateurs slams very high, and pro slams very slow).
Still, in terms of achievements, Laver's OE CYGS is massive, and a strong enough reason to "close the gap" and put him above Rosewall.
As for Sampras' 14... a look at the WTA could show that top women were able to reach very high slam counts (in "recent" times compared to Sampras' active years, Graf at 22, Evert and Navratilova reached 18 - in older times Court at 24). Men had lower numbers (and surface difference seems to have had a higher impact than for women), but amateur-pro split barred many generations from having a shot (and Aussie was often skipped, etc...). One could have assumed 14 wasn't safe. In fact, Big Three's numbers aren't that surprising, now that surfaces are more homogenized... they're actually inline with WTA's top-tier ATGs figures. The more surprising element is to have three players reaching this range despite the fierce competition between them (but then, with slightly lower competition, they'd have been in the Graf-Williams-Court figures).
Last edited:
BGod
G.O.A.T.
AO: Novak 7-Federer 6-Sampras 2-Nadal 1
FO: Nadal 11-Federer/Novak 1-Sampras 0
WMB: Federer 8-Sampras 7-Novak 4-Nadal 2
USO: Federer/Sampras 5-Novak/Nadal 3
WTF: Federer 6-Sampras/Novak 5-Nadal 0
#1: Federer-Sampras-Novak-Nadal
