Is there consensus that Nadal ahead of Pete when he lifts the cup on Sunday?

NGM

Hall of Fame
There is a little doubt that Nadal will triumph on Sunday and with 15 slams, the debate about who is number 2 of the open era must be closed, at least for now?

Hundred weeks more at number 1 can not be seen favour of 1 slam, 4 finals, and utter domination on one specific surface.

It's over and clear as sky to me.
 
Last edited:
There is a little doubt that Nadal will triumph on Sunday and with 15 slams, the debate about who is number 2 of the open era must be closed, at least for now?

Hundred weeks more of number 1 can not be seen favour of 1 slam, 4 finals, and utter domination on one specific surface.

It's over and clear as sky to me.
1. He is already ahead of Sampras, as Nadal has the Career Grand Slam and Sampras utterly failed on clay, so was more of a "one trick pony".

2. It's not clear at all that Nadal will win Roland Garros. I think Wawrinka has a great chance.
 
Nadal will be ahead in the most important cathegory but 5>0 WTF, 7>2 Wimbledons (still the most prestigious tournament), 100+ more weeks at no 1 can't just be cancelled out by a gazillionth FO.
But Nadal beat Fed to get one of his Wimbledons. Beating "the GOAT" on the surface counts for a lot.
 

Rafa24

Hall of Fame
Nope,Sampras will still be way better on 2/3 surfaces.
Sampras has 11 masters 1000s to Nadals 30. Pete couldn't even make the finals for one french. Rafa has won multiple slams on all surfaces including being the only player in history to win 1 slam on 3 different surfaces in the same year. Rafa has made 5 wimby finals, 3 US open and 4 AO and now 10 French. Not only is he by far the best ever on his best surface he has won and been in lots of finals on his least favorite surface whereas pete couldn't even make 1 clay final. Pete is already miles behind Rafa on the ATG list with or without a win by Rafa on sunday.

Oh don't forget olympic singles gold and doubles gold. Pete has neither. All pete has over rafa is WTFs(8 player exhibition with points) and weeks at number 1.
 

Rafa24

Hall of Fame
10 in clay, 3 in hard, 2 in grass. Sampras 7 in grass and 7 in hard. Who is more complete? :rolleyes:

And you say it as if winning 10 RG (in case he get it) isn't incredible.
Don't forget his 2 olympic golds. Only player of the top 3 ever(Fed, Nadal and Djoker) to have the career golden slam.
 

Rafa24

Hall of Fame
Nadal will be ahead in the most important cathegory but 5>0 WTF, 7>2 Wimbledons (still the most prestigious tournament), 100+ more weeks at no 1 can't just be cancelled out by a gazillionth FO.
A number 1 by your name puts nothing in the trophy case. Ask Caroline Wozniaki how important the number 1 ranking is......
 

Defcon

Hall of Fame
He can win another few FO and still won't be as impressive. If tennis surfaces hadn't been slowed down to favor longer rallies at the expense of attacking players, he'd have a lot fewer titles.

In a few years when everything has been slowed down to clay levels, will people still compare the achievements?
 

KingKyrgios

Professional
Sampras has 11 masters 1000s to Nadals 30. Pete couldn't even make the finals for one french. Rafa has won multiple slams on all surfaces including being the only player in history to win 1 slam on 3 different surfaces in the same year. Rafa has made 5 wimby finals, 3 US open and 4 AO and now 10 French. Not only is he by far the best ever on his best surface he has won and been in lots of finals on his least favorite surface whereas pete couldn't even make 1 clay final. Pete is already miles behind Rafa on the ATG list with or without a win by Rafa on sunday.

Oh don't forget olympic singles gold and doubles gold. Pete has neither. All pete has over rafa is WTFs(8 player exhibition with points) and weeks at number 1.
Masters value,now and back then isnt really comparable.
At the end of the day sampras has 7 hardcourt slams and 7 Ws clearly a lot better player off clay.
 

Rafa24

Hall of Fame
Masters value,now and back then isnt really comparable.
At the end of the day sampras has 7 hardcourt slams and 7 Ws clearly a lot better player off clay.
Anndddddd he has 0 FOs and 0 FO finals. I didn't say he wasn't better off of clay. I said Nadal is more accomplished than he is which is true. And Nadal easily has a more well rounded career.


And 0 Olympic Golds.
 

Rafa24

Hall of Fame
He can win another few FO and still won't be as impressive. If tennis surfaces hadn't been slowed down to favor longer rallies at the expense of attacking players, he'd have a lot fewer titles.

In a few years when everything has been slowed down to clay levels, will people still compare the achievements?
Blah blah blah if they hadn't sped up AO Rafa would have beat fed.......
 

icedevil0289

G.O.A.T.
Sampras has 11 masters 1000s to Nadals 30. Pete couldn't even make the finals for one french. Rafa has won multiple slams on all surfaces including being the only player in history to win 1 slam on 3 different surfaces in the same year. Rafa has made 5 wimby finals, 3 US open and 4 AO and now 10 French. Not only is he by far the best ever on his best surface he has won and been in lots of finals on his least favorite surface whereas pete couldn't even make 1 clay final. Pete is already miles behind Rafa on the ATG list with or without a win by Rafa on sunday.

Oh don't forget olympic singles gold and doubles gold. Pete has neither. All pete has over rafa is WTFs(8 player exhibition with points) and weeks at number 1.
lol you don't have to down play wtf, just because nadal never won one. like you said nadal has plenty of things going for him, so idk why you would do that....wait nvm i do. so transparent. you make it sound like beating top 8 players in one tournament and also weeks at no.1 are so insignificant
 

icedevil0289

G.O.A.T.
tbh, not that I care for pete, it's really hard to compare because yes pete never made it far on his least favorite surface, but it was much much harder to transcend surfaces so to speak when pete was playing. would rafa be as successful on grass and hc without surface homogenization,,,idek? you are going to have arguments on both sides depending on how you like. strictly speaking in slam sense, yes rafa>pete obviously.
 

NGM

Hall of Fame
15 grand slams sounds amazing, then you realize 10 were the french open
But half of Sampras' slams came from 1 tournament too.

Nadal will be ahead in the most important cathegory but 5>0 WTF, 7>2 Wimbledons (still the most prestigious tournament), 100+ more weeks at no 1 can't just be cancelled out by a gazillionth FO.
If you consider second rated tournaments, Nadal has nearly triple Masters compared to Sampras.

And he also won all slams.
We can always debate, but Nadal has more valid arguments than Sampras. I say he comes on top in any discussion about number 2 player in the Open Era.
 

icedevil0289

G.O.A.T.
tbh i still think surface homogenization needs to kind of factor in why it is much easier to win slams on all surfaces now, like some of the people who won wimbledon are not natural grass court players and c'mon "clayray"...
 

icedevil0289

G.O.A.T.
A number 1 by your name puts nothing in the trophy case. Ask Caroline Wozniaki how important the number 1 ranking is......
except sampras backed up that no.1 ranking, talk about false equivalence and not trying to take anything away from caroline, but still
 

Tommy Haas

Hall of Fame
15 grand slams sounds amazing, then you realize 10 were the french open
How about Djoko's slam count being mainly from the AO? Fed is a complete player through and through. If there was no Nadal, Fed would have like 25-30 slams.

In my book the list is as follows:

1. Fed
2. Nadal
3. Sampras
4. Djoko
 

sliceroni

Professional
This a jinx thread for Nadal? Before the FO started if you asked me does anybody stand a chance against an in form Nadal I would've said Stan in Stanimal mode. He has a great chance tomorrow.
 

icedevil0289

G.O.A.T.
He didn't back it up well at the French Open. Couldn't even make one final.
yes, i'm aware, but you know the french open does not =tennis what i'm saying its an odd comparison because y'know 14 gs champion is hardly the right comparison to caroline who hasn't won a slam period and nothing to take away from her either. but meh, favs propping up certain things while downplaying others, nothing new its fine
 

Rafa24

Hall of Fame
How about Djoko's slam count being mainly from the AO? Fed is a complete player through and through. If there was no Nadal, Fed would have like 25-30 slams.

In my book the list is as follows:

1. Fed
2. Nadal
3. Sampras
4. Djoko

If there was no Djoker Rafa would already have 18+. 3 straight finals losses when nobody else was beating him other than Djoker and then a 1/4 loss at FO where Nadal likely would have won it. Nadal had to deal with prime fed and when he slipped super djoker was born and became a machine.

No Djoker or Nadal and Roger has 30. No Fed or Djoker Rafa has 25. No Rafa or Roger and Djoker has 20.
 

Backspin1183

G.O.A.T.
Just by reaching the RG final again, Nadal has proven that he is as great as Pete, if not greater. I had Pete ahead of Rafa, but Rafa is in another Slam final again. He could even end the year at number 1. If he wins on Sunday, he passes Sampras who was perhaps the second greatest player of all time after Laver before Federer came along.
 

Rafa24

Hall of Fame
yes, i'm aware, but you know the french open does not =tennis what i'm saying its an odd comparison because y'know 14 gs champion is hardly the right comparison to caroline who hasn't won a slam period and nothing to take away from her either. but meh, favs propping up certain things while downplaying others, nothing new its fine
I'm not saying number one ranking has no significance I am just saying titles are much more meaningful to me. Exact reason roger skipped clay season. He had/has a shot at number 1 but slams mean more than being number 1.

Pete clearly was a fast court specialist with nowhere near the competition of Fed, Djoker and Nadal. Fed and Djoker even managed to win an FO during the King of clays tenure. Granted the years they both won it neither of them beat him. lol
 

citybert

Hall of Fame
Sampras has 11 masters 1000s to Nadals 30. Pete couldn't even make the finals for one french. Rafa has won multiple slams on all surfaces including being the only player in history to win 1 slam on 3 different surfaces in the same year. Rafa has made 5 wimby finals, 3 US open and 4 AO and now 10 French. Not only is he by far the best ever on his best surface he has won and been in lots of finals on his least favorite surface whereas pete couldn't even make 1 clay final. Pete is already miles behind Rafa on the ATG list with or without a win by Rafa on sunday.

Oh don't forget olympic singles gold and doubles gold. Pete has neither. All pete has over rafa is WTFs(8 player exhibition with points) and weeks at number 1.
I lean Nadal but I do remember Sampras hated playing B2B days for masters. Not an excuse but it was definitely not his favorite.

Nadal has a much better body of work. And yes if the 2 played H2H they would both win on their home surface.
 

icedevil0289

G.O.A.T.
I'm not saying number one ranking has no significance I am just saying titles are much more meaningful to me. Exact reason roger skipped clay season. He had/has a shot at number 1 but slams mean more than being number 1.

Pete clearly was a fast court specialist with nowhere near the competition of Fed, Djoker and Nadal. Fed and Djoker even managed to win an FO during the King of clays tenure. Granted the years they both won it neither of them beat him. lol
hmmm i know you going to hate this but @zagor help a girl out. lol idk know if i would necessarily classify pete as a fast court specialist. uso, ao, and wimbledon did not necessarily play the same way. i mean one could also say rafa would be a specialist as well if not for how surfaces changed. i'm not saying rafa doesnt have his merits, i'm not sure i agree with all th arguments being made.

also you didnt necessarily address my previous point. you brought caroline to support the no.1 doesnt always have meaning argument, but in this case no.1 w/ 14 gs has a hell of a lot weight to it. i dont care either way if I'm being honest, nadal probably has surpassed pete at this point, but i feel like some people are doing a disservice to pete, and propping up this era just to support their favs
 

Rafa24

Hall of Fame
hmmm i know you going to hate this but @zagor help a girl out. ehh idk know if i would necessarily classify pete as a fast court specialist. i mean one could also say rafa would be a specialist as well if not for how surfaces changed. i'm not saying rafa doesnt have his merits, i'm not sure i agree with all th arguments being made.
Well hardcourt and grass are fast. Clay is slow. And he couldn't make one clay final so I'm not sure how else to call it. A truly ATG can win on all surfaces. If not for Rafa, Roger and Djoker would each have 4-5+ RG titles. That being said they both at least have 1 win on each surface and both made multiple FO finals. Pete couldn't manage one.
 

Rafa24

Hall of Fame
I lean Nadal but I do remember Sampras hated playing B2B days for masters. Not an excuse but it was definitely not his favorite.

Nadal has a much better body of work. And yes if the 2 played H2H they would both win on their home surface.
Sounds like he was lazy if he didn't want to play back to backs.
 

icedevil0289

G.O.A.T.
Well hardcourt and grass are fast. Clay is slow. And he couldn't make one clay final so I'm not sure how else to call it. A truly ATG can win on all surfaces. If not for Rafa, Roger and Djoker would each have 4-5+ RG titles. That being said they both at least have 1 win on each surface and both made multiple FO finals. Pete couldn't manage one.
lol i think its way too simplistic to automatically group hc/grass together, yes both are generally faster than clay, but its not like they play exactly the same way. i agree that atg can win on all surfaces, but lbr its definitely much easier to win on all surfaces now than it was back then. you seem to place a lot more emphasis on clay and obviously for reasons that make sense to you and trust me, i realize that pete failing to make an rg final and his record on clay works against him, i just think people are also down playing a lot of other factors.
 

duaneeo

Hall of Fame
A 10th FO title would be twice the number of titles won at the other 3 slams combined. Draw your own conclusions.
 

Rafa24

Hall of Fame
lol i think its way too simplistic to automatically group hc/grass together, yes both are generally faster than clay, but its not like they play exactly the same way. i agree that atg can win on all surfaces, but lbr its definitely much easier to win on all surfaces now than it was back then. you seem to place a lot more emphasis on clay and obviously for reasons that make sense to you and trust me, i realize that pete failing to make an rg final and his record on clay works against him, i just think people are also down playing a lot of other factors.
I'm not placing a lot of emphasis on clay. It is one of the 3 surfaces GS are played on. Rafa, Roger and Djoker have won on all 3. Whereas pete couldn't make a single RG final. That is a huge ding in your resume not even making one final on one of the 3 slam surfaces.
 

Tommy Haas

Hall of Fame
lol i think its way too simplistic to automatically group hc/grass together, yes both are generally faster than clay, but its not like they play exactly the same way.
Yeah, both grass and some HC are fast. Balls are going to bounce much lower on grass than HC. HC is the cleanest and most neutral surface to play on IMO and perhaps where H2H comparisons should hold the most weight.
 

Rafa24

Hall of Fame
A 10th FO title would be twice the number of titles won at the other 3 slams combined. Draw your own conclusions.
The conclusion is he has dominated a surface like NO OTHER player in history. And even without his domination of that he still has 5 slams and would still be considered an ATG. 5 wimby finals, 4 AOs, 3 US Opens. Olympic gold in singles and doubles.
 
Top