Nadal vs Old Greats without best slam

[TripleATeam]

So a simple premise. Nadal doesn't get to play clay, Sampras doesn't get grass, Lendl doesn't get the USO (or leadup tournaments). This is my attempt to show that when you remove a player's greatest strength, Nadal still ends up among the strongest 5 players of tennis ever. He is not weak off of clay.

Nadal - clay = 2 AO, 2 WIM, 4 USO. 8 slams, 10 M1000 titles. 0 ATP Finals.
Sampras - grass = 2 AO, 5 USO. 7 slams, 11ish M1000 titles (9 if we call carpet the M1000 equivalent of grass). 5 ATP Finals.
Borg - clay = 5 WIM. 5 slams, 7 M1000 titles. 2 ATP Finals.
Connors - USO (tough case. The changing surfaces make it tough. Let's say USO. If we say grass he ends up with 4 slams, but weirdly distributed) = 1 AO, 2 WIM. 3 slams. Some M1000s but I'm lazy and it's not immediately apparent. 2 ATP Finals.
Lendl - USO = 2 AO, 3 RG. 5 slams. 15 M1000s. 5 ATP Finals.
Agassi - AO = 1 RG, 1 WIM, 2 USO. 4 slams. 11 M1000s, 1 ATP Finals.

Others (just slams):
McEnroe - USO = 3 WIM. 3 slams.
Wilander - RG = 3 AO, 1 USO. 4 slams.
Edberg - AO = 2 WIM, 2 USO. 4 slams.
Becker - WIM = 2 AO, 1 USO. 3 slams.


Even if you cut down Nadal's career to just the size of Borg's (retired in 2012), Nadal still has 4 off-clay slams. That's among the top 5 on this list, potentially tying some other names over their whole career. And if you extend it just until Nadal turns 31 (Sampras' retirement), he has 6 off-clay slams. Ahead of literally everyone on this list except for Sampras himself, who he'd be only 1 slam behind.

Regardless of who you think is more versatile off their best surface - Nadal or Sampras, what you can't deny is numbers. The numbers show that Nadal is certainly top 5 for greatest tennis players outside his best slam, and potentially top 3 if you rank him above Sampras. Without Djokovic and Federer, Nadal would have a case for being the most versatile player in tennis history (even without winning the titles they did).

Sampras was unable to play on clay at ATG level. Borg was extremely high level on HC and certainly would've won one eventually, but didn't. Lendl was not ATG level on grass.

The other contenders would be Agassi and Connors. Very good players. Connors won the USO on all 3 surfaces, and won 4 grass slams and 3 HCs. Agassi won RG, Wimbledon, and plenty of HC slams. Also a good number of finals. But no one of these players can say they reached at least 5 finals at each slam. None of them can say they won each slam twice. None can say they have an >80% win rate at each slam.

None except Nadal.

 

[xFedal]

Now do 1 for Novak and Great Fed

 

[TripleATeam]

Now do 1 for Novak and Great Fed

Ah you already know how that one pans out. No need to make threads on stuff we already know.

Novak has 13 slams off AO, plus 27 non-leadup Masters, and 6 ATP Finals.

Federer has 12 slams off Wimbledon, plus 28 M1000s, and 6 ATP Finals.

 

[AgassiSuperSlam11]

Connors since he missed the AO and FO often gets possibly hurt the most. Connors only played the AO twice which resulted in one win and one final. In addition, he missed 5 FO during his prime due his participation in World Team Tennis (WTT). Nonetheless, he won 109 ATP titles and had a 16-3 Bo5 HC Finals record which suggests he likely would've won more slams if there were 2 HC slams as today. Since the AO was played in Grass a good portion his career, he likely would've made 5 Finals (he made 2 in 2 years). I think the FO was where he likely would've felt short in making 5 consecutive finals. I believe did make 3-4 SF's when he was allowed to play.

Agassi missed a few Wimbledon's which likely wouldn't have impacted his total slam count. He likely would've won maybe 1-2 more AO if he started to play there in 1988.

Both Agassi (1) and Nadal 2 (1 Singles, 1 Doubles) are also Gold Medalists which add to their career achievements. Wilander won 7 slams that included 3 Clay, 2 Grass, and 2 HC. Lendl despite not winning Wimbledon did win 28 or more singles titles in 3 surfaces (Clay, HC, and Carpet). All of the aforementioned had remarkable accomplishments.

 

[Deleted member 758560]

pete is better outside their greatest strength, how many years pete played and how many nadal..by the same age pete has 7, nadal 6

 

[NAS]

Rafa is atg outside clay, and in other news water is wet.
Please tell me something new

 

[NAS]

pete is better outside their greatest strength, how many years pete played and how many nadal..by the same age pete has 7, nadal 6

Nobody stopped Pete from playing, his problem was fitness one of the main reason he never won single hc from 1997 us open 99 us open and some of these hc slam had very weak draw, he lost the first tough match or was unfit most of the time during these 2 and half year.
Even in 2000 AO he just has to beat only one good player Agassi.
If pistol has brought his 2000,2001,2002 us open form in these six hc, he would have taken atleast 2-3 more hc slam
There is no way the guy was loosing 98, 99 us open and 99 AO.( injury concers in all three)
These three slam are given with decent form

 

[Winners or Errors]

So a simple premise. Nadal doesn't get to play clay, Sampras doesn't get grass, Lendl doesn't get the USO (or leadup tournaments). This is my attempt to show that when you remove a player's greatest strength, Nadal still ends up among the strongest 5 players of tennis ever. He is not weak off of clay.

Nadal - clay = 2 AO, 2 WIM, 4 USO. 8 slams, 10 M1000 titles. 0 ATP Finals.
Sampras - grass = 2 AO, 5 USO. 7 slams, 11ish M1000 titles (9 if we call carpet the M1000 equivalent of grass). 5 ATP Finals.
Borg - clay = 5 WIM. 5 slams, 7 M1000 titles. 2 ATP Finals.
Connors - USO (tough case. The changing surfaces make it tough. Let's say USO. If we say grass he ends up with 4 slams, but weirdly distributed) = 1 AO, 2 WIM. 3 slams. Some M1000s but I'm lazy and it's not immediately apparent. 2 ATP Finals.
Lendl - USO = 2 AO, 3 RG. 5 slams. 15 M1000s. 5 ATP Finals.
Agassi - AO = 1 RG, 1 WIM, 2 USO. 4 slams. 11 M1000s, 1 ATP Finals.

Others (just slams):
McEnroe - USO = 3 WIM. 3 slams.
Wilander - RG = 3 AO, 1 USO. 4 slams.
Edberg - AO = 2 WIM, 2 USO. 4 slams.
Becker - WIM = 2 AO, 1 USO. 3 slams.


Even if you cut down Nadal's career to just the size of Borg's (retired in 2012), Nadal still has 4 off-clay slams. That's among the top 5 on this list, potentially tying some other names over their whole career. And if you extend it just until Nadal turns 31 (Sampras' retirement), he has 6 off-clay slams. Ahead of literally everyone on this list except for Sampras himself, who he'd be only 1 slam behind.

Regardless of who you think is more versatile off their best surface - Nadal or Sampras, what you can't deny is numbers. The numbers show that Nadal is certainly top 5 for greatest tennis players outside his best slam, and potentially top 3 if you rank him above Sampras. Without Djokovic and Federer, Nadal would have a case for being the most versatile player in tennis history (even without winning the titles they did).

Sampras was unable to play on clay at ATG level. Borg was extremely high level on HC and certainly would've won one eventually, but didn't. Lendl was not ATG level on grass.

The other contenders would be Agassi and Connors. Very good players. Connors won the USO on all 3 surfaces, and won 4 grass slams and 3 HCs. Agassi won RG, Wimbledon, and plenty of HC slams. Also a good number of finals. But no one of these players can say they reached at least 5 finals at each slam. None of them can say they won each slam twice. None can say they have an >80% win rate at each slam.

None except Nadal.

Hmm, unfair to the 70s, early 80s players who only played 3 slams a year.

 

[NAS]

Hmm, unfair to the 70s, early 80s players who only played 3 slams a year.

I think we can add year end championship for them to get better look

 

[DSH]

There is always talk that Federer and Djokovic would have stratospheric figures on clay and especially in RG without the presence of Nadal.
The same can be said of Nadal without their presence outside of his favorite surface.
Nadal would have more Australian Open titles than Agassi (5), the same titles as Sampras at Wimbledon (7), the same titles as Connors and Sampras at the US Open (5), probably 3 or 4 ATP Finals as McEnroe, Becker or even Nastase and like 20 more hard court titles for him.
All this would imply for him many more weeks as number 1 and Years End in the first spot than Sampras.

 

[Deleted member 758560]

sounds really funny ndal having seven wimby titles