It was awesome watching the two BEST EVER

[McEnborg]

When you look at Pete Sampras, he clearly deserves to be in the top 6 of all time...but he is not above Rafa...no way. In 13 French Open appearances, he got to 1 semifinal, where he was blitzed by Kafelnikov. That is a glaring hole in his resume. Whereas Rafa has excelled on ALL surfaces. That alone puts Rafa ahead of Pete.

Laver was great in winning 2 slams but he NEVER faced the depth of opponents that Roger and Rafa have in terms of each other, Novak, Murray and Wawrinka. He would never have beaten Fed or Nadal.

Fed is unquestionably the greatest of all time. 89 titles, 18 slams, 28 slam final appearances, FORTY ONE times getting to the semis or better in slams, 49 times getting to QF or better...6 year end titles, 14 years BETWEEN SLAMS!!!! Coming back from 6 months off at age 35 to win a hard court slam and beating Wawrinka, Nishikor and Rafa. The argument is over...at least for now.

Novak and Rafa still have a shot at getting there, but it's unlikely. I don't think Rafa needs 18 to be considered as good as Fed. With his Gold Medal and 23-12 record vs Fed, he could equal him, in my opinion with 2-3 more slam wins. And Novak has not yet turned 30. He certainly could get very close or possibly even surpass Rafa and maybe even Roger. My top 10 of all time:

1) Federer
2) Nadal
3) Laver
4) Djokovic
5) Sampras
6) Borg
7) McEnroe (77 doubles titles, best hands ever)
8) Lendl
9) Connors
10) Agassi

 

[SinjinCooper]

When you look at Pete Sampras, he clearly deserves to be in the top 6 of all time...but he is not above Rafa...no way. In 13 French Open appearances, he got to 1 semifinal, where he was blitzed by Kafelnikov. That is a glaring hole in his resume. Whereas Rafa has excelled on ALL surfaces. That alone puts Rafa ahead of Pete.

Pete has 12 slams on fast surfaces, Nadal has zero. Is that a glaring hole in Nadal's resume? Or just a difference in era?

Fact: Sampras 14 slams, second best in his era, 8. Difference +75%.
Fact: Nadal 14 slams, best in his era, 18. Difference -30%.

Game, set, GOAT matchup: Sampras.

 

[Fedfan34]

Pete has 12 slams on fast surfaces, Nadal has zero. Is that a glaring hole in Nadal's resume? Or just a difference in era?

Fact: Sampras 14 slams, second best in his era, 8. Difference +75%.
Fact: Nadal 14 slams, best in his era, 18. Difference -30%.

Game, set, GOAT matchup: Sampras.

Correction: slow or fast is a matter of your opinion. Until you have actual metrics to back this up, this is subjective.
The objective reality is Pete has 12 slams at the US Open and Wimbledon, while Rafa has 4. Rafa has 10 slams at the Aussie and French, Pete has 2, and none at the French.

No matter how many ways you try to crisscross, caddieboy, or skiddadle around it, Pete is the one with the glaring black hole of never winning a slam on his worst surface. Rafa did.

Game, set, match, Humbalito.

And as for Rogi, Pete is his butler.

 

[JMR]

Fact: Sampras 14 slams, second best in his era, 8. Difference +75%.
Fact: Nadal 14 slams, best in his era, 18. Difference -30%.

Game, set, GOAT matchup: Sampras.

Another way of looking at these achievements is to observe that Sampras managed 14 slams against puny eight-slam opposition, whereas Nadal collected 14 slams despite facing colossal 18-slam opposition.

Or you could just say they each won 14 slams. (So far, in Rafa's case.)

 

[kalyan4fedever]

1) Federer
2) Nadal
I agree with #1 and #2

Fed clearly #1
Nadal is an all court complete player and surely should be ranked before sampras, #2 of all time

 

[Fedfan34]

1)Rogi
2)Rodi
3)Wafi
4)Petey
5)Djokey
6)Borgi
7)Gasi
8)Vani
9)Jimi
10)Johni

 

[mattennis]

Federer the best of this era, Nadal and Djokovic the second and third (in any order).

Federer among the six or seven greatest ever. Nadal and Djokovic possibly among the 20 greatest ever.

 

[McEnborg]

Federer the best of this era, Nadal and Djokovic the second and third (in any order).

Federer among the six or seven greatest ever. Nadal and Djokovic possibly among the 20 greatest ever.

Man, you really are delusional. Nadal and Rafa would beat Tilden, Budge, Laver, Borg, Connors, Agassi and Lendl 7-9 out of 10 times. Such a poorly informed and illogical response. Why don't you consider what Johnny Mac says?????

 

[tennis_pro]

Federer the best of this era, Nadal and Djokovic the second and third (in any order).

Federer among the six or seven greatest ever. Nadal and Djokovic possibly among the 20 greatest ever.

Name those 20 players better than Nadal and Djokovic, please.

I'd like to know the 5-6 who are better than Federer too.

 

[AiRFederer]

I agree.

Federer
Nadal

Everyone else. Opposition, talent level of top 100, 3 ATGs in fed novak nadal, a very dangerous tier 2 in wawa, murray, davydenko pre controversy, delpo, and the young guns.