Nadal vs Sampras

Who is greater?


  • Total voters
    72

Nole Slam

Professional
I am trying to remove Nadal from the top 5 all time. For that to happen, Sampras needs to win this debate. I hope that Lew and the VB taught me well.

Nadal

14 Slams {19 Slams - (2 Berrettini Opens + 3 weak era FOs)}
0 YECs (The gaping hole in his resume)
5 YE #1 (Somewhat inflated)
209 weeks at number one (Only 56 consecutive, lol)

Sampras

14 Slams
5 YECs
6 YE #1 (Record)
286 weeks at number one

Vote and discuss.
 

anarosevoli

Rookie
YE #1 shouldn't even be listed in this joke thread. There is always a full year on the ranking, YE #1 is not better than any other #1. In fact it is MUCH WORSE because it gives free #1 weeks that have to be subtracted from a player's total #1 weeks when discussing real achievements not luck.
 

Incognito

Legend
I am trying to remove Nadal from the top 5 all time. For that to happen, Sampras needs to win this debate. I hope that Lew and the VB taught me well.

Nadal

14 Slams {19 Slams - (2 Berrettini Opens + 3 weak era FOs)}
0 YECs (The gaping hole in his resume)
5 YE #1 (Somewhat inflated)
209 weeks at number one (Only 56 consecutive, lol)

Sampras

14 Slams
5 YECs
6 YE #1 (Record)
286 weeks at number one

Vote and discuss.
you should remove Nole from all time top 10 because the greatest on HC and Grass is 6 years his senior.
 

HazBeen18

Rookie
I think they are closer than some Fedal fans would think (or like to think), as Pete was a tremendous athlete who dominated the sport in ways few have. But, I think even Pete would agree that Fedal and Novak are on a different level. They are the three best of all time amazingly playing at the same time in history. Rafa owns clay, Fed owns grass, and Novak owns hard courts (top 3 in interchangeable order). Next comes Laver, and then comes Pete, IMHO.
 

Sunny Ali

Hall of Fame
Sorry OP, this is an utterly silly question. In terms of accomplishments, Sampras isn't remotely in the same stratosphere as Nadal. Sorry but there's no comparison!

In terms of playing ability, Sampras is just as good as Nadal or Djokovic.
 

blablavla

Hall of Fame
Sorry OP, this is an utterly silly question. In terms of accomplishments, Sampras isn't remotely in the same stratosphere as Nadal. Sorry but there's no comparison!

In terms of playing ability, Sampras is just as good as Nadal or Djokovic.
sorry machan, we need to clarify a few things before throwing conclusions:
- more polarized courts like in 90s or homogenized courts of post 2000?
- poly strings all the way? or do we implement the ITF rules and remove undue spin?
- balls that were used with more polarized courts or balls used with post 2000 courts?
- are indoor carpet courts part of the game?
- is the grass pre- 2001 or post 2001?
 

swizzy

Hall of Fame
to get nadal out of the top 5 is gonna take some effort. this effort will have to be from 3 or 4 future players and it might take a very long time
 

travlerajm

G.O.A.T.
I am trying to remove Nadal from the top 5 all time. For that to happen, Sampras needs to win this debate. I hope that Lew and the VB taught me well.

Nadal

14 Slams {19 Slams - (2 Berrettini Opens + 3 weak era FOs)}
0 YECs (The gaping hole in his resume)
5 YE #1 (Somewhat inflated)
209 weeks at number one (Only 56 consecutive, lol)

Sampras

14 Slams
5 YECs
6 YE #1 (Record)
286 weeks at number one

Vote and discuss.
You forgot to incorporate prestige factor into major titles. Wimbledon titles count double, which boosts the case for Pete.
 

blablavla

Hall of Fame
Nadal is way more accomplished than Sampras lol. You can't make up 5 slam difference with anything lol.

As far as "best" though (not greatest) I think Fedovicalpras are all similar 4 at the top.
how about:
- more polarized speed of the courts?
- playing with gut strings?
- using the balls from the 90s?

you probably know the difference in results if a player wins 1% less rallies?
and you probably know that defensive players got a massive advantage in the early 2000s
 

metsman

G.O.A.T.
At 31 both had 14 majors. Nadal then stuck around and scooped up 5 majors against Thiem, Anderson, and Berrettini. Grounds for more longevity/better career? Absolutely.
Grounds for greater? I don't think so.
 

RS

Hall of Fame
At 31 both had 14 majors. Nadal then stuck around and scooped up 5 majors against Thiem, Anderson, and Berrettini. Grounds for more longevity/better career? Absolutely.
Grounds for greater? I don't think so.
Nadal won 16 majors before turning 32 years old ......
 
At 31 both had 14 majors. Nadal then stuck around and scooped up 5 majors against Thiem, Anderson, and Berrettini. Grounds for more longevity/better career? Absolutely.
Grounds for greater? I don't think so.
Better career=greater imo.

I think "better" could be argued though
 

Sunny Ali

Hall of Fame
sorry machan, we need to clarify a few things before throwing conclusions:
- more polarized courts like in 90s or homogenized courts of post 2000?
- poly strings all the way? or do we implement the ITF rules and remove undue spin?
- balls that were used with more polarized courts or balls used with post 2000 courts?
- are indoor carpet courts part of the game?
- is the grass pre- 2001 or post 2001?
Agreed Machan! If all courts had been fast, Sampras would also have 20.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Sampras had Chang/Martin/Piolines etc etc though. And i bet most of them are not better than Fed/Djo at RG.
I think Pete's competition is overrated as well tbh. He had a few softer draws himself.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Sampras has 5 slams less than Nadal yet he is better than Nadal but not as good as Federer though the slam count is almost the same between Federer/Nadal.

Some incredible Federer fan logic :-D
Djokovic fan made this thread...obviously a troll thread too.

So salty. Keep throwing that shade though
 

RS

Hall of Fame
Versus the millions of bull fans who think he had the roughest competition ever.
And Federer fans and Djokovic fans as well. lew (stopped now by lots of old threads)/abmk(not on anymore)/beard say hello no?
 
Last edited:
Top