65 83 81 79
97 77 78 75
Alright time for some preschool math. What’s the higher average?
Upon ranking the players all-time-great, Sampras always gets dock for his weakness on clay, and it hurts his placement in all-time-great. In fairness, Nadal gets dock for his weakness during the indoor season. Nadal fans don't hesitate to diminish Sampras for his poor results on clay, but don't do the same for Nadal on indoor. Both players legacy are not well-polished. You can't have it both way.
I'm just asking for consistency here.
Nadal beat future champ of Atp finals many times there! Djokovic-07 ,Murray-10&15 Tsitsipas and Medvedev-19. He beat past champion thrice Djoker-08,Fed-13& Tistsipas-20. Still people compare the mediocrity of Sampras on clay to the fine quality of Nadal on indoor hard. Things cant get any foolish than this.
And I’m saying that it’s very close on HCs and at Neds peak he was going toe to toe with Fed on grass.Who's talking about averages or overall leader? Pete leads Nadal at the majority of the slams, that's a fact you must accept.
For Sampras fanatics, clay will always be a faux surface. For the VBers, indoor events are only meaningless exhos.
WTF isin't more prestigious than your average Masters to me.
As I have said before, excessive amounts of prize money and ranking points for a tournament with a gimmicky round robin format is meant to manufacture interest after the 4 slams have already been completed. 1500 points? Give me a break.
In competitive eras with all ATGs in their post primes/primes, this is really meant to capitalize on player fatigue and artificially narrow the gap between the top ranked players to generate viewership.
Relatively dear!!!! Nadal is farly superior on ih than sampras on clay. Multiple finals, one title, one davis cup , and as mentioned above beating future champs and past champs in Atp finals ranks Nadal miles ahead of SamprasSampras did win the highly prestigious Rome event so he was certainly not a complete noob on clay.
Relatively dear!!!! Nadal is farly superior on ih than sampras on clay. Multiple finals, one title, one davis cup , and as mentioned above beating future champs and past champs in Atp finals ranks Nadal miles ahead of Sampras
In between W and USO maybe? Before the USO-warmup HC swing?T'was always the case but when else could you stage an event that invites only the 8 best players on tour to participate except at season's end (any earlier and the 8 best players would not have had time to prove themselves)?
Sampras never had the toughest competition on clay ! Due respect to the then clay courters but the fact remains Nadals ih competition >> Sampras clay competition.I agree with you but, at the end of the day, both have come away with just 1 Masters title on their least favoured surface.
How come Fed hasn’t won on the slow clay extra bounce tournaments? MC, Rome?I agree with you but, at the end of the day, both have come away with just 1 Masters title on their least favoured surface.
It's not about YEC specifically, it's about how ineffective Nadal game becomes under certain conditions. His weakness is not as consequential in today's era because every slam is high bouncing (relatively speaking), it's individual how much that affects opinion on him as a player but it's there.
Borg for example was a monster on indoor carpet (ditto for Lendl), it's only in this era that the most accomplished guy will be the one who didn't develop his game for faster conditions because they simply aren't there.
just my opinion but if youre the greatest of all time you should be able to win indoors, or grass, clay, whatever it is..
rafa had all the cards for him to win shanghai or WTF... he wasnt burnt out/injured, it was a short year,
he didnt have to run into federer or djokovic, etc.. and he still didnt do it..
Second, I was on this forum when Federer was on the verge of breaking Sampras' record. it was the Federer fanboys, not Nadal fans, that often belittled Sampras for his lack of a clay slam. Now that Federer's records are falling like pins, you claim that Nadal fans diminish Sampras? LOL, how times have changed! I've been on this forum a considerable time and Nadal fans have been more than gracious toward Sampras. Now that Federer's records are falling, his fans are being very complimentary toward Sampras. I wonder why!
Relatively weak. Nadal is still no worse than, say, the 4th- or 5th-best indoor hard court player in the world at 34-years-old. Likewise, Pete had several QFs runs at Roland Garros, won Rome, and beat some excellent clay courters in their prime. It's a relative weakness.
Nadal beat future champ of Atp finals many times there! Djokovic-07 ,Murray-10&15 Tsitsipas and Medvedev-19. He beat past champion thrice Djoker-08,Fed-13& Tistsipas-20. Still people compare the mediocrity of Sampras on clay to the fine quality of Nadal on indoor hard. Things cant get any foolish than this.
same for you
Agree to disagree here. If Sampras fans can find merit in argument that Sampras has beat Bruggeria in a slam then why does my argument regarding Nadal beating past and future champs on ihc look foolish to you??? Regarding beating Djokovic in 10, he was not into his prime as you said but he was already a champ ( winning it in 08).Well it is foolish to consider beating future champ as some great achievement. Mario Ancic defeated a future 8 time champion at Wimbledon.
Djoker in 2008 is still not a force he was 2011 onwards while the lesser we talk of Fed 2013 the better it is. And it is frankly quite desperate to include Tsitsipas example here.
There is no doubt about facts. There are always huge doubts about conjecture.As @SecondToNone already said, if there'd been an indoor slam, there's little doubt it'd be on Nadal's resume already.
Agree to disagree here. If Sampras fans can find merit in argument that Sampras has beat Bruggeria in a slam then why does my argument regarding Nadal beating past and future champs on ihc look foolish to you??? Regarding beating Djokovic in 10, he was not into his prime as you said but he was already a champ ( winning it in 08).
Your ans is in your post itself. Nadal dint suck at ihc!!!! Any neutral viewer, follower will say the same. He ain't great , hell yeah, but definitely not in the worse category. Comparing his ihc resume to Sampras's clay resume is pathetic to say the leastOk so you mean to say if someone is being foolish, you doing the same thing doesn't make you foolish. Sampras fans are being childish here because he sucked at FO and his fans are tying to clutch at straws to somehow defend him. Consider this; Becker routed Chang in French 91 QF. Doesn't make Becker any better player at French/clay than what he is considered with 0 overall titles.
Indoors is not a grand slam court hence it doesn't hold the same value as clay, grass and hardcourt.
Translation: "as a Nadal fan I can confirm that indoors doesn't have as much value as clay, because Nadal hasn't won anything on it"Indoors is not a grand slam court hence it doesn't hold the same value as clay, grass and hardcourt.
So much respect for Borg and Lendl for their achievements on carpet. Same goes for Agassi for winning Wimbledon on fast grass.
Not only does Nadal not have a single End Of Year Championship, I don't think he has a single carpet title either. You can't be the greatest ever if you only won in a subset of conditions *.
* He is undoubtedly the greatest dirt courter, no argument there.
So much respect for Borg and Lendl for their achievements on carpet. Same goes for Agassi for winning Wimbledon on fast grass.
2005 TMC was on carpet and Paris was on carpet till 2006Loll indoor carpet!!!! Wasn't it banned before Nadal started winning slams???
Ok my bad. But my point stands, Nadal dint play in 2005 tmc if am not wrong.2005 TMC was on carpet and Paris was on carpet till 2006
To be fair, Nadal probably would have won 1 or 2 without Federer and Djokovic (two of greatest of all time and two greatest indoor players). There is no scenario that Sampras could have won French. He simply was too mediocre on that surface. There were a few great matches he played here and there but it was nearly impossible for him to win 7 BO5 matches on clay. Nothing to be ashamed of though, surfaces were too different back then. His game was just not cut out for clay.
The problem with Nadal at WTF is not the surface that much, it is the fact that he has to beat 3-4 top 8 or 10 players back to back. There are no easy draws and shortcuts here which Nadal took advantage of many, many times in slams.
Your ans is in your post itself. Nadal dint suck at ihc!!!! Any neutral viewer, follower will say the same. He ain't great , hell yeah, but definitely not in the worse category. Comparing his ihc resume to Sampras's clay resume is pathetic to say the least
I suspect what really happened is that there were a rash of "who is better--Roger or Pete" threads once they tied in the slam count, and belittling happened on both sides.
Likewise, I suspect there were a rash of "who is better--Rafa or Pete" threads once they tied in the slam count, and belittling happened on both sides.
Federer has the record for most records.
Doesn't this clearly show that there's no difference between the two fan bases? I have been really pissed off by talks about Federer fan base vs Nadal fan base vs Djokovic fan base and who is better behaved blah blah. It is only a matter of where a player stands that decides the behavior of fanbases. In past when Federer was competing with Sampras to overtake him as GOAT his fans were pulling Sampras down but Nadal fans were siding with Pete because Nadal was still some distance away from Federer. Now that Nadal is almost level with Federer, Federer fans are becoming respectful of Sampras as comparing Nadal and Sampras in discussions help them firm up their effort for supporting Federer.
Reasonable points except this:
There is no doubt about facts. There are always huge doubts about conjecture.
Desperate fan but truthful I would say . I give the credit to other players where it's due generally.When did I say that Nadal is in the worst category? I only raised question on your reasoning which was desperate.
Btw not everyone here have the heart to accept the facts, may be thats the reason I put up a strong desperate but reasonably fair argumentWhen did I say that Nadal is in the worst category? I only raised question on your reasoning which was desperate.
And I’m saying that it’s very close on HCs and at Neds peak he was going toe to toe with Fed on grass.
If Nadal is 9 tiers ahead of Sampras on clay with Sampras a tier ahead on HC and three tiers ahead on grass, then it’s not really a discussion with regards to who’s greater.
it’s easily Nadal...by a country mile.
If Nadal had like 7 French opens and Pete had 1 then it’s a different story. Pete wins. But that’s far from the case.
Close is no cigar. Where did I mention anything about who is greater overall?
The fact is Pete is ahead of Nadal at the majority of slams.
We all know what you are trying to do. Nice try tho.
Grass holds more value than clay or hardcourt as you need a more complete/talented game (no baseline pushing but quick decision making at almost every stroke) to succeed.
Clay is about physically outlasting your opponent, it's the surface where your athletic attributes mean the most.
Hard is in between, but since the HCs have been slowed down significantly it's become a surface for mindless baseline pushing as well for the majority.
Honestly it's a shame how winning Wimby theoretically has the same value as winning the AO, RG or USO. In no way are those slams nearly as prestigious or important (according to the tour player themselves mind you) as Wimby.
Translation: "as a Nadal fan I can confirm that indoors doesn't have as much value as clay, because Nadal hasn't won anything on it"
What are you talking about it?To be fair, Nadal probably would have won 1 or 2 without Federer and Djokovic (two of greatest of all time and two greatest indoor players). There is no scenario that Sampras could have won French. He simply was too mediocre on that surface. There were a few great matches he played here and there but it was nearly impossible for him to win 7 BO5 matches on clay. Nothing to be ashamed of though, surfaces were too different back then. His game was just not cut out for clay.
The problem with Nadal at WTF is not the surface that much, it is the fact that he has to beat 3-4 top 8 or 10 players back to back. There are no easy draws and shortcuts here which Nadal took advantage of many, many times in slams.
2010, 13, 15What are you talking about it?
Without them, Nadal would have won at least 3 or 4 titles.
Think about that!
I'm not comparing the FO vs. WTF even though the WTF is the 5th biggest tournament of the year.Indoors is not a grand slam court hence it doesn't hold the same value as clay, grass and hardcourt.