Nadal vs Sampras

Who is greater?


  • Total voters
    72

Pheasant

Hall of Fame
Petes' advantages: 5 more WTF, 77 more weeks at #1

Nadal's advantages: 5 more slam titles, career grand slam., 21 more titles, Olympic gold medal.

21 more career titles is a boatload. This to me cannot be overlooked. And look at the road blocks Nadal faced to win those grass court and hard court titles to complete the career grand slam. He had to play through all of Djoker'speak and half of Fed's peak.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
And Federer fans and Djokovic fans as well. lew (stopped now by lots of old threads)/abmk(not on anymore)/beard say hello no?
Don't think many Fed fans claim he had the toughest competition - not sure abmk ever said that either. Says something about you that you think arguing Fed had comparable or better competition than Nadal is the same as arguing his was the toughest of all time ;)
 

RS

Hall of Fame
Don't think many Fed fans claim he had the toughest competition - not sure abmk ever said that either. Says something about you that you think arguing Fed had comparable or better competition than Nadal is the same as arguing his was the toughest of all time...
I have heard Nadal fans say Federer had it easier but they often leave Djokovic and past greats out. Toughest ever? Maybe your generalising as much as i am. Djokovic fans as well ? Sport made a thread about Wim 19 draw for Nadal being the hardest ever draw which was a bit much........

The bolded is not directly said out loud but the implication that Federer oppenents were nearly always better means Fed is at least close in regard at least among ATGs and far ahead of Djokdal.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
I have heard Nadal fans say Federer had it easier but they often leave Djokovic and past greats out. Toughest ever? Maybe your generalising as much as i am. Djokovic fans as well ? Sport made a thread about Wim 19 draw for Nadal being the hardest ever draw which was a bit much........

The bolded is not directly said out loud but the implication that Federer oppenents were nearly always better means Fed is at least close in regard at least among ATGs and far ahead of Djokdal.
You've heard that have you? :laughing: For years the battle cry of the Nadal fanbase used to be h2h and toughest competition ever.

And I don't know about nearly always? I think there's a few key examples that get brought up a lot but I don't know whether every slam draw is championed...
 

Sunny Ali

Hall of Fame
Djokovic fan made this thread...obviously a troll thread too.

So salty. Keep throwing that shade though
Yes machan, Djokovic should be in the mix too. All said and done, he looks like the one who'll leave Samrapas, Federer, Nadal ... all of them in the dust. Then we'll be looking back at this thread and look stupid :-D
 

Sunny Ali

Hall of Fame
"Anything I disagree with-Federer fan logic"
Also it's blindingly obvious that this is a troll thread....
No, it's not like that. Start a poll if you don't believe me. There are many Federer fans who think Sampras is better than Nadal but not as good as Federer. I wonder how someone can say that when Nadal has slams on all surfaces and 5 more slams. But having said that, they insist Sampras can't be as good as Federer though :rolleyes:
 

RS

Hall of Fame
You've heard that have you? :laughing: For years the battle cry of the Nadal fanbase used to be h2h and toughest competition ever.

And I don't know about nearly always? I think there's a few key examples that get brought up a lot but I don't know whether every slam draw is championed...
I have only been reading here since 2017 and posting since 2018. You since 2012 so you know. From what i saw on Youtube before that or elsewhere it was always Federer faced weak players like Hewitt/Roddick etc etc while Nadal faced Fed/Djok. And Djokovic fans have said his era was hardest due to the ELO ratings or he faced Murray or Fedal in 11 of his 12 GS.....

And the H2H thing was used non stop by Federer fans in 2017 when Nadal was 0-4 vs Federer. Djokovic fans spammed Fed with this too. Nadal fans of course 23-11.

I disagree with the few key examples that get brought up a lot but fair enough.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Yes machan, Djokovic should be in the mix too. All said and done, he looks like the one who'll leave Samrapas, Federer, Nadal ... all of them in the dust. Then we'll be looking back at this thread and look stupid :-D
Don't count your chickens before they hatch. I would be surprised if Djokovic left Fedal in the dust, that would mean 22 or 23 slams? Big ask at this point. If he does then kudos, before the recent debacle I always preferred Djokovic to Nadal...

No, it's not like that. Start a poll if you don;t believe me. There are many Federer fans who think Sampras is better than Nadal but not as good as Federer. I wonder how someone can say that when Nadal has slams on all surfaces and 5 more slams. But having said that, they insist Sampras can't be as good as Federer though :rolleyes:
The ones who value Sampras over Nadal normally have him right next to Federer as well tbh.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
I have only been reading here since 2017 and posting since 2018. You since 2012 so you know. From what i saw on Youtube before that or elsewhere it was always Federer faced weak players like Hewitt/Roddick etc etc while Nadal faced Fed/Djok. And Djokovic fans have said his era was hardest due to the ELO ratings or he faced Murray or Fedal in 11 of his 12 GS.....

And the H2H thing was used non stop by Federer fans in 2017 when Nadal was 0-4 vs Federer. Djokovic fans spammed Fed with this too. Nadal fans of course 23-11.

I disagree with the few key examples that get brough up a lot but fair enough.
From my perspective the Nadal fanbase have basically reaped what they sowed in those respects. But there's a lot of double standards and intellectual dishonesty from all the fanbases.
 

RS

Hall of Fame
From my perspective the Nadal fanbase have basically reaped what they sowed in those respects. But there's a lot of double standards and intellectual dishonesty from all the fanbases.
Maybe. For what i see most fights about competition are Djokovic vs Fed or Murray vs Roddick on here. Nadal gets left out on here on lot. Youtube is different though strangely....
 

metsman

G.O.A.T.
As for competition I think it's clear that Fedovic on clay aren't any better than Sampras' grass competition. Sampras grass competition had more variety and natural grass courters, so he wins on that end honestly.

Apart from best surface, Nadal faced prime Djokerer 8 times (2 AO, 4 Wimby, 2 USO) and 2013 USO Djokovic was a hot mess. Sampras faced prime Agassi 4 times, prime Bruguera once, prime Edberg once, SafGOAT once. You can call Lendl borderline prime in 1990 too, certainly much tougher than 13 USOvic. And if we're counting 2013 USO Djokovic we could even count 92 USO Courier too.

So it's possible Nadal had the better top end competition, but it's not really too different so we shouldn't give him tons of bonus points for Djokovic and Federer. Again, Sampras had to face so many different types of players, while Nadal's is top heavy.

And this is only a comparison at slams, where Nadal has an edge on the surface anyways due to Pete at the French. Pete's case rests on multiple dominant surfaces, WTF, and greater surface variety.
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
As for competition I think it's clear that Fedovic on clay aren't any better than Sampras' grass competition. Sampras grass competition had more variety and natural grass courters, so he wins on that end honestly.

Apart from best surface, Nadal faced prime Djokerer 8 times (2 AO, 4 Wimby, 2 USO) and 2013 USO Djokovic was a hot mess. Sampras faced prime Agassi 4 times, prime Bruguera once, prime Edberg once, SafGOAT once. You can call Lendl borderline prime in 1990 too, certainly much tougher than 13 USOvic. And if we're counting 2013 USO Djokovic we could even count 92 USO Courier too.

So it's possible Nadal had the better top end competition, but it's not really too different so we shouldn't give him tons of bonus points for Djokovic and Federer. Again, Sampras had to face so many different types of players, while Nadal's is top heavy.

And this is only a comparison at slams, where Nadal has an edge on the surface anyways due to Pete at the French. Pete's case rests on multiple dominant surfaces, WTF, and greater surface variety.
Lol embarrasing post.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Maybe. For what i see most fights about competition are Djokovic vs Fed or Murray vs Roddick on here. Nadal gets left out on here on lot. Youtube is different though strangely....
You should have seen 2013 man.
 

RS

Hall of Fame
As for competition I think it's clear that Fedovic on clay aren't any better than Sampras' grass competition. Sampras grass competition had more variety and natural grass courters, so he wins on that end honestly.

Apart from best surface, Nadal faced prime Djokerer 8 times (2 AO, 4 Wimby, 2 USO) and 2013 USO Djokovic was a hot mess. Sampras faced prime Agassi 4 times, prime Bruguera once, prime Edberg once, SafGOAT once. You can call Lendl borderline prime in 1990 too, certainly much tougher than 13 USOvic. And if we're counting 2013 USO Djokovic we could even count 92 USO Courier too.

So it's possible Nadal had the better top end competition, but it's not really too different so we shouldn't give him tons of bonus points for Djokovic and Federer. Again, Sampras had to face so many different types of players, while Nadal's is top heavy.

And this is only a comparison at slams, where Nadal has an edge on the surface anyways due to Pete at the French. Pete's case rests on multiple dominant surfaces, WTF, and greater surface variety.
Not gonna too deep but depth/variety and facing a wide range of oppenents gets too much credit. Top heavyness is mostly what makes it stronger. If the big 3 o were not so good this era would see a lot more depth/variety as they say.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
That was the year i was active on Youtube most.
I stay away from YT comments.

Not gonna too deep but depth/variety and facing a wide range of oppenents gets too much credit. Top heavyness is mostly what makes it stronger. If the big 3 o were not so good this era would see a lot more depth/variety as they say.
Depth and variety isn't the same as an abject lack of talent allowing for a bunch of weak slam winners.
 

RS

Hall of Fame
I stay away from YT comments.



Depth and variety isn't the same as an abject lack of talent allowing for a bunch of weak slam winners.
I only use this place now when this whole thing is over will leave this for a while.

The last part does not apply generally i was talking career wise. Slam winners from USO 16 onwards got weaker but not the case for most of Nadal career.
 
I was a die heart Sampras Fan in the 1990s, but Sampras has really become a bit overrated these days.
Sampras was an insane clutch performer, who was was at his best at the right moment in the big tournaments many many times.
However, his dominance wasn`t nearly on the same level than what the Big 3 have done.
Sampras had only very few dominant years where he won important tournaments throughout the whole year. He won a few of his Year end numbers ones with really unimpressingly low point numbers. He surely benifited of the 1990s competition where there were a lot of really good players but hardlly anyone was consistent. So many players were Jackle and Hyde back then.
Being great at some tournaments only to do really poor during the rest of the year.
In terms of iconic status I`d surely rank Pete ahead of Nadal. Pete was still part of the golden age of tennis which ended somewhere in the mid 1990s. The status of tennis was simply different to what it is now. Tennis players were larger than life icons back than. You simply don`t have that anymore.
However, in terms of success on the court, it`s hard to argue for Pete.
The one big hole is indeed Nada`s lack of Year End Titles. However, we can`t ignore that this tournament was played on Pete`s favourite surface year in and year out while it has never been played on Nadal`s favourite surface.
So all in all the numbers speak for Nadal. No doubt.
 

metsman

G.O.A.T.
Not gonna too deep but depth/variety and facing a wide range of oppenents gets too much credit. Top heavyness is mostly what makes it stronger. If the big 3 o were not so good this era would see a lot more depth/variety as they say.
There certainly wouldn't be more variety because everyone would still play the same. There wouldn't really be more depth either unless you only judge on numbers and think people like Murray, or in this next era whichever mug wins 5+ slams is an ATG.

It's heavily overstated the effect the big 3 had on each other anyways, especially Nadalovic. Djokovic didn't face best versions of Fed anywhere except a 1 off match at RG and a R16 at AO, didn't face peak Nadal on grass, and didn't face the best version at AO either. Nadal didn't face 15-16 peak Djokovic, any of Djokovic's top versions at AO, or peak Fed off grass. Federer at least pretty much faced every single top version of the other 2 at every major beside Nadal at USO.
 
Last edited:

NatF

Bionic Poster
I only use this place now when this whole thing is over will leave this for a while.

The last part does not apply generally i was talking career wise. Slam winners from USO 16 onwards got weaker but not the case for most of Nadal career.
Sure the standard of play from the winner has been consistently high since 2003, with a few exceptions.
 

E36BMWM3

Hall of Fame
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.
Sorry but no clay court prowess ends this debate. Nadal has seen success in 4/4 surfaces while Sampras has seen success in 3/4. Done and done... next?!
 

Sunny Ali

Hall of Fame
Don't count your chickens before they hatch. I would be surprised if Djokovic left Fedal in the dust, that would mean 22 or 23 slams? Big ask at this point. If he does then kudos, before the recent debacle I always preferred Djokovic to Nadal...



The ones who value Sampras over Nadal normally have him right next to Federer as well tbh.
Machi, agreed on both counts! :)
 

ewiewp

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.
If Rafa was born in other eras, Rafa could have been a great serve and volleyer.
Rafa has gifted hand for volleys.
 
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.
Which one of these guys had to deal with peak Fed for first half of career and peak Nole for second half?
 

mental midget

Hall of Fame
If Rafa was born in other eras, Rafa could have been a great serve and volleyer.
Rafa has gifted hand for volleys.
agree with this, nadal is an all-time talent. as for pete, his clay resume definitely hurts his standing but in terms of talent, he's right there with the big 3. in fact i'd rate novak as the least talented of the 4 in terms of racket skills, but what he does, man he does really well.

unfortunate for pete his game was so very tuned to faster surfaces and lower strike zone. but back to talent, man, watch pete's breakout win at the uso when he was 19. absolutely outrageous performance at 19.
 

Bender

G.O.A.T.
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
  • Polarised speed of the courts isn't an argument in favour of Sampras given that he only found success on fast conditions. You could say that homogenisation allowed Nadal to inflate his achievements off clay, but that argument only truly works if you ignore the fact that Sampras didn't have to deal with two of the greatest HC and grass players of all time in Federer and Djokovic.
  • Gut is more effective on fast surfaces used in conjunction with heavy racquets and flat strokes. As much as racquet and string technology have advanced, the current "meta" is as much a reflection of modern day court conditions as it is the other way around. 90s/00s equipment are not necessarily a steep and direct downgrade when you take court conditions into account. Many players even now are using frames that were originally released 20 years ago.
 

blablavla

Hall of Fame
  • Polarised speed of the courts isn't an argument in favour of Sampras given that he only found success on fast conditions. You could say that homogenisation allowed Nadal to inflate his achievements off clay, but that argument only truly works if you ignore the fact that Sampras didn't have to deal with two of the greatest HC and grass players of all time in Federer and Djokovic.
  • Gut is more effective on fast surfaces used in conjunction with heavy racquets and flat strokes. As much as racquet and string technology have advanced, the current "meta" is as much a reflection of modern day court conditions as it is the other way around. 90s/00s equipment are not necessarily a steep and direct downgrade when you take court conditions into account. Many players even now are using frames that were originally released 20 years ago.
how do you think Nadal would be doing in the:
- indoor carpet tournaments
- really fast surfaces in general

when bringing an argument that Fed, or Novak or Rafa are better players than someone from the past, we need to think of:
- how did the surfaces change
- how did other technology change
- how this impacted the game
- what about advance in knowledge about recovery, fitness, pre-season, injury prevention, etc.,

otherwise, we are comparing apples with bricks.
 

Bender

G.O.A.T.
how do you think Nadal would be doing in the:
- indoor carpet tournaments
- really fast surfaces in general
This is the "apples to bricks" comparison you mentioned. You cannot just give Nadal of 2020 a Pro Staff 85 and throw him onto an indoor carpet tournament of the 90s, the same way you can't just give Edberg a Pure Drive strung up with RPM Blast and throw him onto Court Philippe Chatrier. These players would have developed very differently if they had grow up in another era.

So I cannot tell you how he would've fared at all, and any guesses however "educated" is conjecture at best.

when bringing an argument that Fed, or Novak or Rafa are better players than someone from the past, we need to think of:
- how did the surfaces change
- how did other technology change
- how this impacted the game
- what about advance in knowledge about recovery, fitness, pre-season, injury prevention, etc.,

otherwise, we are comparing apples with bricks.
The only objective thing you can compare is how they fare against the rest of the field, and even that has factors that need to be taken into account.

My point is that you cannot shut down an argument that claims Nadal is better than Sampras, purely on the basis that Sampras used gut, a PS85, and played on fast conditions. Both players are products of their era, and that is a characteristic that cannot be separated from their identities without an actual time machine.
 

ewiewp

Professional
agree with this, nadal is an all-time talent. as for pete, his clay resume definitely hurts his standing but in terms of talent, he's right there with the big 3. in fact i'd rate novak as the least talented of the 4 in terms of racket skills, but what he does, man he does really well.

unfortunate for pete his game was so very tuned to faster surfaces and lower strike zone. but back to talent, man, watch pete's breakout win at the uso when he was 19. absolutely outrageous performance at 19.
To me, Sampras' problem on clay was his fitness level. (particularly for 3 out of 5 set clay slam).
Speculated to be due to his blood conditions.
He is a man of efficiency (therefore :-D ), IMHO.
He is the GOAT of first 30 years of ATP(70s-90s) with 6 straight YE#1,
still unbroken, along with Laver and Gonzalez with (unofficial) YE#1 records in pre-Open eras

Back to Nadal's volleys, first I have to say we do not have many good volleying talents among top players in current era.
It's power "baseline" eras last 15-20 years. what can I say? I see a lot of pros who just can't volley. :-D
In fact, I consider Rafa's volleying reflex is the best among top players, who can really
use volley as secure weapon on clutch points with high pressure.
(Thiem: "I think the last time Rafa failed his volley was about 5 years ago". :-D )
 
Last edited:

zagor

Bionic Poster
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.
Proof PETE is the best:

 

RS

Hall of Fame
There certainly wouldn't be more variety because everyone would still play the same. There wouldn't really be more depth either unless you only judge on numbers and think people like Murray, or in this next era whichever mug wins 5+ slams is an ATG.

It's heavily overstated the effect the big 3 had on each other anyways, especially Nadalovic. Djokovic didn't face best versions of Fed anywhere except a 1 off match at RG and a R16 at AO, didn't face peak Nadal on grass, and didn't face the best version at AO either. Nadal didn't face 15-16 peak Djokovic, any of Djokovic's top versions at AO, or peak Fed off grass. Federer at least pretty much faced every single top version of the other 2 at every major beside Nadal at USO.
You would have Murray/Hewitt/Roddick in finals then guys like Tsonga/Ancic/Ranoic/Karlovic/Anderson/Isner it would certainly have a lot more variety of styles than currently. Maybe still lesser than the 1990s but you would have quite a few different slam winners.

Federer best versions and peaks are just heavily selective to favour him usually. Djokovic and Nadal faced lots of strong versions of Federer and each other is all the matters reallu. They have all had a big effect on each other imo even though recent Djokdal meetings are overstated i agree the rivalry went down after RG 2014 save for Wim 18.
 

1stVolley

Semi-Pro
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.
So, you want to compare a S&V player using a small head racquet for most of his career with a superior baseline player using a powerful 100 sq. in. racquet. And, in addition, Sampras had a genetic disease which became more manifest later in his career and compromised his endurance. Assuming, for example, that they had both won the same number of slams (which isn't true obviously), we could fairly ask whether it was an example of greater tennis skill to do it with Sampras' technique and equipment or Nadal's. I don't think we can objectively answer that question, so all we've got are our opinions.

Even worse is the attempt to create an "all time" great list which spans even greater eras than that between Sampras and Nadal. How do you fairly compare Tilden with Federer? I don't believe it can be done. They play arguably different sports.
 

metsman

G.O.A.T.
You would have Murray/Hewitt/Roddick in finals then guys like Tsonga/Ancic/Ranoic/Karlovic/Anderson/Isner it would certainly have a lot more variety of styles than currently. Maybe still lesser than the 1990s but you would have quite a few different slam winners.

Federer best versions and peaks are just heavily selective to favour him usually. Djokovic and Nadal faced lots of strong versions of Federer and each other is all the matters reallu. They have all had a big effect on each other imo even though recent Djokdal meetings are overstated i agree the rivalry went down after RG 2014 save for Wim 18.
Ancic would have made 1 slam final and he's the only guy on that list who actually has a varied playing style. Murray, Hewitt, Roddick, Tsonga are all baseline dominant. As is Berdych, Ferrer, whoever else would have gotten the extra slams. Not sure why you're bringing up Raonic/Karlovic/Anderson/Isner, doesn't exactly help your case to talk about them and they're all 1 dimensional anyways.

there's nothing selective about 3 straight years from 22-25. Borg, Pete, Lendl also all had their peak play come mostly over 3 consecutive years. That's normal, maybe Djokodal have skewed your perception which makes you want to call 2011 or 2009 peak Fed or something.

Selective is part of 2007, part of 2008, part of 2009, only the slams/WTF in 2010, clay 2012, HC 2013. Or 2011 until USO, 2015, half of 2016. Despite that selectively, Fed managed to meet them every time.
 

RS

Hall of Fame
there's nothing selective about 3 straight years from 22-25. Borg, Pete, Lendl also all had their peak play come mostly over 3 consecutive years. That's normal, maybe Djokodal have skewed your perception which makes you want to call 2011 or 2009 peak Fed or something.

Selective is part of 2007, part of 2008, part of 2009, only the slams/WTF in 2010, clay 2012, HC 2013. Or 2011 until USO, 2015, half of 2016. Despite that selectively, Fed managed to meet them every time.
Never said 2011 or 2009 was a peak Federer at all. I was talking generally about the big 3 being competition not who faced the best versions of each other. And you do you know form is judged based on indivdual matches as well. Was not talking about who faced the toughest versions of the 3 but was getting the impression you undersold Djokdal as competition for each other.

Murray/Hewitt are like counterpunchers. While Del Potro/Berdych/Tsonga/Safin are bombers and the 2 and 4th solid of both wings. Then the servecentric players and servebots Karlovic/Isner and Roddick who is a agressive basliner but is quite serve reliant. Not all basliene centric are the same but still. Without the big 3 you are seeing a wider variety of finals and variety in today game is underlooked imo.
 

TennisFan3

Legend
Sampras was stronger mentally. I would say he is stronger mentally than all of the current player: Fedalvoiv included.
Sampras arguably also had greater competition. A much bigger variety of players across different eras and accomplished surface specialists.

That being said, Nadal has just accomplished more. Period. The Spaniard has also lasted longer and is still NOT done.
So while it breaks my heart to say this, Nadal is the greater player.

Ultimately though what matters more is how we feel. Sampras - the humble champion and the king of swing - will remain in the hearts of his fans as the best. Always.
Pistol Pete Forever!!
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Never said 2011 or 2009 was a peak Federer at all. I was talking generally about the big 3 being competition not who faced the best versions of each other. And you do you know form is judged based on indivdual matches as well. Was not talking about who faced the toughest versions of the 3 but was getting the impression you undersold Djokdal as competition for each other.

Murray/Hewitt are like counterpunchers. While Del Potro/Berdych/Tsonga/Safin are bombers and the 2 and 4th solid of both wings. Then the servecentric players and servebots Karlovic/Isner and Roddick who is a agressive basliner but is quite serve reliant. Not all basliene centric are the same but still. Without the big 3 you are seeing a wider variety of finals and variety in today game is underlooked imo.
Tsonga and Del Potro post 2009 don't have better back hands than Roddick imo.
 
Top