Nadal Will Be Greater Than Sampras...

[GasquetGOAT]

Let's see,
before turning 23 Nadal had already won 6 majors which is better than Sampras' 5 majors at the same age.

Nadal's 2008 season was better than any of Sampras' seasons with two slams -French and Wimbledon double, an Olympic Gold Medal and Davis Cup.

Olympic Gold Medal, Nadal 1 > Sampras 0

Nadal has won 15 Masters series titles > Sampras 11.

Nadal has won 4 consective French Open titles, Sampras never reached the final at Roland Garros, not even once.

Nadal has won slams on 3 different surfaces > Sampras only won on 2 (Grass and Hardcourt).

Nadal has a leading H2H record against the G.O.A.T Federer, 13-7. Sampras has never beaten Federer.

Nadal has the Longest single-surface winning streak of 81 matches. > Sampras.

If Nadal can win another 4-6 slams which is quite reasonable (remember he is only 23, time is on his side), making a total of 12 slams and plus all these impressive records already over Sampras, he would be greater than Sampras.

I'd like to hear thoughts of Sampras' fans on this. Also, remember to stick to the topic, this is not about Federer eventhough I understand nothing can be discussed on this board without mentioning Federer, I know you all love him but try your best not to digress.:twisted:

 

[FedFan_2009]

I can see you are already forgetting about Nadal > Federer and setting your sights lower.

 

[Sephiroth_FFVII]

Tennis careers are anything but linear. Although a small part of your claims are true, you conclusion would only be valid if Nadal could indefinitely continue the form he had before his knees gave out earlier this year.

 

[GasquetGOAT]

I can see you are already forgetting about Nadal > Federer and setting your sights lower.

I thought that's an established unspoken truth on this board already. No more discussions necessary, no?

 

[Giggs The Red Devil]

With everything you wrote, Agassi is still better than Nadal.

 

[NadalandFedererfan]

If he wins atleast 12 slams and the career slam IMO he will be greater. Nadal has had to deal with Federer all the time, way harder than dealing with Agassi even if Agassi wasnt in many slumps and often not at his best when Sampras won his titles. Sampras has done nearly nothing in his career on clay, Nadal has already been in 3 straight Wimbledon finals and won 1, and won the Olympics and Aussie Open on hard courts.

 

[MordredSJT]

Just some small factual problems here...

Sampras was actually part of 2 winning Davis Cup teams in his career. One was in 1992. The other was in 1995 when he took part in all 3 U.S.A wins in the final round against Russia, two singles matches and a doubles match...on clay.

Unlike Nadal, Sampras actually played in both Davis Cup final rounds.

I find it kind of odd to say that Nadal won two Davis Cups when he didn't even play the finals in one of those instances. He was part of the team, and helped them get there...but it isn't like he single handedly won the final round now did he...

 

[fed_rulz]

i was thinking of the same exact thing this morning. If nadal reaches double-digit slam #'s, he'll have a very good argument for the GOAT candidacy, at least over Pete. Remember, Nadal would have won most (all?) of his slam titles while playing alongside Federer!!!

 

[Deleted member 21996]

well if you put it that way: im going to get a bit crazy!

Let's see,
before turning 23 Nadal had already won 6 majors which is better than Sampras' 5 majors at the same age.

soo? lets see how this year ends... :twisted:

Nadal's 2008 season was better than any of Sampras' seasons with two slams -French and Wimbledon double, an Olympic Gold Medal and Davis Cup.

like Sampras gave a damn about Olympics

Davis Cup, Nadal 2 > Sampras 0

ignorance at his best or not!

Olympic Gold Medal, Nadal 1 > Sampras 0

you said it before... does this count for 2 features

Nadal won a gold medal- there you go.. another paragraph for your great facts!

oh.. did i mention Nadal won a gold medal..?

Nadal has won 15 Masters series titles > Sampras 11.

how many on clay?

Nadal has won 4 consective French Open titles, Sampras never reached the final at Roland Garros, not even once.

so what are Nadal's great achievements in grass by comparison to Samp? or did you think it was going to pass?

Nadal has won slams on 3 different surfaces > Sampras only won on 2 (Grass and Hardcourt).

did he? ho... and a gold medal to.. did i mention that?

Nadal has a leading H2H record against the G.O.A.T Federer, 13-7. Sampras has never beaten Federer.

why do you say Nadal as a H2h over Laver?

Nadal has the Longest single-surface winning streak of 81 matches. > Sampras.

hum hum... and this is relevant to the "greatness" debate by what measure?

If Nadal can win another 4-6 slams which is quite reasonable (remember he is only 23, time is on his side), making a total of 12 slams and plus all these impressive records already over Sampras, he would be greater than Sampras.

not even good at aritmetics?

6+4-6=12

I'd like to hear thoughts of Sampras' fans on this. Also, remember to stick to the topic, this is not about Federer eventhough I understand nothing can be discussed on this board without mentioning Federer, I know you all love him but try your best not to digress.:twisted:

i love his "fedbag"... that is foshu!

 

[Deleted member 21996]

Well, I'm trying to "improve" the varieties of topics on here instead of all the Federer praisings and bashings. Let's talk about Nadal and Sampras for a change, wouldn't hurt would it?

P.S. Nadal does have a good case if he can increase his slams count.

a good improvement would be to talk about:

- this years Junior Wimby champ...
- the chances of Verdasco do good in USO
- the performances going on at newport right now..

how is the 1283401437093 thread about Sampras\Nadal\Fed.... different!?

 

[FedFan_2009]

a good improvement would be to talk about:

- this years Junior Wimby champ...
- the chances of Verdasco do good in USO
- the performances going on at newport right now..

how is the 1283401437093 thread about Sampras\Nadal\Fed.... different!?

* Andrey Kuznetsov is the junior Wimbledon champ. 18 years old from Russia. Don't know what his game is like.
* Verdasco will do quite well, semis if he doesn't run into Federer sooner
* Taylor Dent will win Newport.

 

[viduka0101]

how many on clay?

why is it ok to have 10 of your 11 masters on hard and better than having 11 of 15 on clay(and counting)
you said it best yourself

ignorance at his best or not!

 

[GasquetGOAT]

!

like Sampras gave a damn about Olympics

But TTW posters do. Which is far more important than Sampras' opinion.



you said it before... does this count for 2 features

I never said this count for 2 features. I didn't number them did I?

Nadal won a gold medal- there you go.. another paragraph for your great facts!

Facts are facts.

oh.. did i mention Nadal won a gold medal..?

Exactly a gold medal which Sampras does not have.



how many on clay?

How many on clay for Sampras?



so what are Nadal's great achievements in grass by comparison to Samp? or did you think it was going to pass?

What are Sampras's achievements on clay? Is clay inferior to grass in your opinion?


did he? ho... and a gold medal to.. did i mention that?

yes which is the gold medal Sampras does not have.

why do you say Nadal as a H2h over Laver?

No, its Federer.

hum hum... and this is relevant to the "greatness" debate by what measure?

Still a great record.

not even good at aritmetics?

6+4-6=12

4-6 means 6+4=10 and 6+6=12, do you need everything to be spelled out for you? Posters before you didn't seem to have that problem.


i love his "fedbag"... that is foshu!

I don't think its for sale so can't help you there.

 

[FedFan_2009]

Really, can we discuss something other then Federer? It's very boring right now!

 

[clayman2000]

I think it is clear that if Rafa could get to 10 slams, 1 of them being the USO he would be under GOAT debate.... he has all the intangibles

 

[flyinghippos101]

Sorry but Father Time likes whacking Nadal's knees with a bat

 

[clayman2000]

why is it ok to have 10 of your 11 masters on hard and better than having 11 of 15 on clay(and counting)
you said it best yourself

10 of Nadal's 15 Masters are on clay cause he has 5 hard:
1)05 Canada
2) 05 Madrid
3) 07 Indian Wells
4) 08 Canada
5) 09 Indian Wells

 

[FedFan_2009]

Andrey Kuznetsov is already sponsored by Nike, I guess he's about to turn pro. He'll give Dimitrov a good run in the Challengers.

 

[flying24]

I think it is clear that if Rafa could get to 10 slams, 1 of them being the USO he would be under GOAT debate.... he has all the intangibles

He would need atleast 12 just to be in consideration for Open Era GOAT. 10 would never be enough. If Federer wins anywhere close to 20 he would need atleast 15 to even be considered.

 

[viduka0101]

10 of Nadal's 15 Masters are on clay cause he has 5 hard:
1)05 Canada
2) 05 Madrid
3) 07 Indian Wells
4) 08 Canada
5) 09 Indian Wells

my mistake

 

[Deleted member 21996]

What are Sampras's achievements on clay? Is clay inferior to grass in your opinion?

no but you seem to do otherwise...

No, its Federer.

that is your opinion. that is good. you have opinions... you do know they are not facts! dont you?

I don't think its for sale so can't help you there.

sad... anyways my girlfriend thinks i would not look good in a "fedbag"...

 

[EtePras]

I think a Wimbledon won by defeating Federer in 5 sets is more impressive than 7 Wimbledons won without defeating anyone with more than 10 slams, but there's always trolls who think otherwise.

 

[viduka0101]

He would need atleast 12 just to be in consideration for Open Era GOAT. 10 would never be enough. If Federer wins anywhere close to 20 he would need atleast 15 to even be considered.

the name of the discussion is:
Nadal Will Be Greater Than Sampras...
and the OP didn't want to involve Federer

 

[IvanAndreevich]

One thing he will never achieve is 6 years of year-end number 1 ranking. And probably less than 14 GS's by quite a bit.

LONG LONG way to go before even starting this discussion.

 

[GasquetGOAT]

no but you seem to do otherwise....

the key word here is "seem".




that is your opinion. that is good. you have opinions... you do know they are not facts! dont you?

Same to you. Hope you don't think your opinions were facts. Who was it you said, Laver?


sad... anyways my girlfriend thinks i would not look good in a "fedbag"..

lol maybe your girlfriend would think otherwise if you were fed..

 

[flying24]

the name of the discussion is:
Nadal Will Be Greater Than Sampras...
and the OP didn't want to involve Federer

I was not responding to the OP. I was responding to someone who mentioned him as being a GOAT candidate if he won 10 majors, which would include Laver, Federer, Sampras, and all other comers.

 

[Deleted member 21996]

the key word here is "seem".

you state that nadal's acomplishments in clay are a reason for his superiority over sampras. it's only fair that you question Nadal's grass ones for the sake of the argument.

so you make statements but you dont believe them?

Same to you. Hope you don't think your opinions were facts. Who was it you said, Laver?

yes... that was my opinion...

once more: you state facts base on your judgement? so why cant i?

lol maybe your girlfriend would think otherwise if you were fed..

she like to see me in more manly looks... go figure....:twisted:

 

[supertrex]

GasquetGoat why dont you show your Forum topic to ESPN rep and maybe have them read it. Bring a trash bag just incase.

 

[GasquetGOAT]

Just some small factual problems here...

Sampras was actually part of 2 winning Davis Cup teams in his career. One was in 1992. The other was in 1995 when he took part in all 3 U.S.A wins in the final round against Russia, two singles matches and a doubles match...on clay.

Unlike Nadal, Sampras actually played in both Davis Cup final rounds.

I find it kind of odd to say that Nadal won two Davis Cups when he didn't even play the finals in one of those instances. He was part of the team, and helped them get there...but it isn't like he single handedly won the final round now did he...

You are right. Post edited.

 

[GasquetGOAT]

you state that nadal's acomplishments in clay are a reason for his superiority over sampras. it's only fair that you question Nadal's grass ones for the sake of the argument.

so you make statements but you dont believe them?:

No I did not say that. Don't put words in my mouth. I simply said Sampras never reached final at Roland Garros. Read the first post again.

yes... that was my opinion...

once more: you state facts base on your judgement? so why cant i?

Yes by all means, where did I say otherwise?

she like to see me in more manly looks... go figure....:twisted

Absolutely I agree. Many men are troubled by insecurity.

 

[GasquetGOAT]

GasquetGoat why dont you show your Forum topic to ESPN rep and maybe have them read it. Bring a trash bag just incase.

LOL looks like I hit a nerve haven't I?:lol:

 

[Eviscerator]

I'd like to hear thoughts of Sampras' fans on this. Also, remember to stick to the topic, this is not about Federer eventhough I understand nothing can be discussed on this board without mentioning Federer, I know you all love him but try your best not to digress.:twisted:

One does not have to be a Sampras fan to disagree with your assumptions. Furthermore, and as usual it seems, you brought Federer into the discussion and claimed he is the GOAT.

In my view, it is possible for Nadal to become greater than Sampras, but only time will tell. For that matter, Nadal may surpass Federer or Laver, depending on how his career goes, though I would not put money on it.

Once Nadal has hung up his racquets, then we can reflect on his accomplishments. Until then it is purely speculation.
`

 

[Deleted member 21996]

No I did not say that. Don't put words in my mouth. I simply said Sampras never reached final at Roland Garros. Read the first post again.

unless i understood wrongly, you claimed his (nadal) achievements in clay are one of the reason why he is superior to sampras. but you seem to forget grass...

Yes by all means, where did I say otherwise?

you didnt...

so GOAT (if there was such thing) is Laver - My opinion... Nadal did not play against him. any thing against?

Absolutely I agree. Many men are troubled by insecurity.

that's what i tell her... now using pink is manly! using "fedbags" is too...:twisted:

she is oldfashioned... what can i say!!!

 

[GameSampras]

This is VERY premature. Lets see Nadal make it through an entire season healthy first shall we? He cant even seem to do that. Much less attain any type of longevity.


I will agree though if he can burst back on the scene, stay healthy for some more years (doubtful when u look at his career up to this point), start collecting more slams, show some longevity on top of the game win the USO, get close to the record, then MAYBE.


Then his h2h domination over Fed at the slam can put him on type by default.

Now will all this happen? Highly doubt it

 

[GasquetGOAT]

unless i understood wrongly, you claimed his (nadal) achievements in clay are one of the reason why he is superior to sampras. but you seem to forget grass...

!!!

Thats right, it is one of the reasons. And I forgot about grass? Didn't you read the part I wrote Nadal has won slams on 3 different surfaces, Sampras only on 2? Last time I checked Nadal did win Wimbledon, didn't he? and no French Open for Sampras, am I right?

you didnt...

so GOAT (if there was such thing) is Laver - My opinion... Nadal did not play against him. any thing against?

Good. But why would you think I have anything against it? lol I simply said Nadal is 13-7 over Fed and Sampras is 0-1 against Federer(GOAT imo).

that's what i tell her... now using pink is manly! using "fedbags" is too..

she is oldfashioned.. what can i say

Like I said, many men have problems of insecurity. So its ok to hate pink.:twisted:

 

[tennis_hand]

By age analysis, he can be greater than even Federer.
But, can he continue like this until he is 30? This is the question that determines his status in history.

 

[OTMPut]

If Nadal can win another 4-6 slams which is quite reasonable (remember he is only 23, time is on his side), :twisted:

Are you brain dead or somehting? Can't you see Nadal is done?
I will shave my head if he wins one more slam.

His calendar age may be 23 but biological age of certain body parts critical to pro tennis are way over 50.

I am sad for you my friend, but that is what it looks like.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Let's see,
before turning 23 Nadal had already won 6 majors which is better than Sampras' 5 majors at the same age.

Nadal needs to shorten his points if he wants to catch up to Sampras, his game may be too physical for sustained excellence. Bottomline is, give it time.

Nadal's 2008 season was better than any of Sampras' seasons with two slams -French and Wimbledon double, an Olympic Gold Medal and Davis Cup.

Sampras '94 is just as good, IMO. Two slams, three masters, 10 tournaments won (Nadal won 8 last year), including the Year end championship, which to me is waaay more impressive.

Olympic Gold Medal, Nadal 1 > Sampras 0
Nadal has won 15 Masters series titles > Sampras 11.

I think Sampras' five ATP championships closes the gap---also, Sampras made it to 8 Masters finals, whereas Nadal only made it to 5. Nadal is still ahead in Masters results, but not by much.
What many people forget is the fact that Sampras's best surface---grass---is not represented by any Masters tournament. Can you imagine what Nadal's total would be if their were no Masters tournaments on clay? Sampras would probably have surpassed Agassi's record had there been any on grass.

Nadal has won 4 consective French Open titles, Sampras never reached the final at Roland Garros, not even once.

And Rafa has never reached a US Open final, wheras Sampras has made it 8 times, 3 times by the age of 23.
Your point?

Nadal has won slams on 3 different surfaces > Sampras only won on 2 (Grass and Hardcourt).

Nadal has never won a slam on a fast hardcourt. Sampras has never won on clay, but, like Nadal, has won on a slow hardcourt, fast hardcourt, and grass, by the time he was 23.
Sure, Nadal might have a slight edge as far as that is concerned, but IMO that's not a hugely important point of contention.

Nadal has a leading H2H record against the G.O.A.T Federer, 13-7. Sampras has never beaten Federer.

Federer has played Nadal on clay in 55% of their matches. Tell me, had Sampras played Agassi 55% of the time on clay, would he have a winning record?
Well, Sampras was 17-12 against Agassi on hardcourts, carpet and grass. So had they played another 30, Agassi would have to go 18-12 against Sampras in order to shift the H2H in his favor, which IMO is generous to Sampras.
It may seem as if I'm shooting myself in the foot here (arguing against Sampras), but my point is: it's skewed to look at H2H when most of the time it's one player's (BY FAR) best surface versus another players (BY FAR) worst surface, as is the case with Fed and Rafa (no, I'm not suggesting that clay is Agassi's best surface, but still, the point stands.)

Nadal has the Longest single-surface winning streak of 81 matches. > Sampras.

Well, Sampras DID go 66-4 on grass from '94-2000, and also won Wimby in 1993. So at the very least, he was the most dominant player on grass for a very very long time.
I'm a Fed fan, but come on, it's just way too early to make a case for Nadal as being better than Sampras, even at this stage in their careers I would say Sampras was a bit better, nevermind the fact that he had won another 9 slams from that point forward.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Let's see,
before turning 23 Nadal had already won 6 majors which is better than Sampras' 5 majors at the same age.

Nadal needs to shorten his points if he wants to catch up to Sampras, his game may be too physical for sustained excellence. Bottomline is, give it time.

Nadal's 2008 season was better than any of Sampras' seasons with two slams -French and Wimbledon double, an Olympic Gold Medal and Davis Cup.

Sampras '94 is just as good, IMO. Two slams, three masters, 10 tournaments won (Nadal won 8 last year), including the Year end championship, which to me is waaay more impressive than the Olympics.

Olympic Gold Medal, Nadal 1 > Sampras 0
Nadal has won 15 Masters series titles > Sampras 11.

I think Sampras' five ATP championships closes the gap---also, Sampras was a runner up in 8 Masters---Nadal only 5. Nadal is still ahead in Masters results, but not by much. Sampras wasn't really that interested in Masters anyway. What many people also forget is the fact that Sampras's best surface---grass---is not represented by any Masters tournament. Can you imagine what Nadal's total would be if their were no Masters tournaments on clay? Sampras would probably have surpassed Agassi's record had their been any on grass.

Nadal has won 4 consective French Open titles, Sampras never reached the final at Roland Garros, not even once.

And Rafa has never reached a US Open final, wheras Sampras has made it 8 times, 3 times by the age of 23.
Your point?

Nadal has won slams on 3 different surfaces > Sampras only won on 2 (Grass and Hardcourt).

Nadal has never won a slam on a fast hardcourt. Sampras has never won on clay, but, like Nadal, has won on a slow hardcourt, fast hardcourt, and grass, by the time he was 23.
Sure, Nadal might have a slight edge as far as that is concerned, but IMO that's not a hugely important point of contention.

Nadal has a leading H2H record against the G.O.A.T Federer, 13-7. Sampras has never beaten Federer.

Federer has played Nadal on clay in 55% of their matches. Tell me, had Sampras played Agassi 55% of the time on clay, would he have a winning record?
Well, Sampras was 17-12 against Agassi on hardcourts, carpet and grass. So had they played another 30, Agassi would have to go 18-12 against Sampras in order to shift the H2H in his favor, which IMO is generous to Sampras.
It may seem as if I'm shooting myself in the foot here (arguing against Sampras), but my point is: it's skewed to look at H2H when most of the time it's one player's (BY FAR) best surface versus another players (BY FAR) worst surface, as is the case with Fed and Rafa (no, I'm not suggesting that clay is Agassi's best surface, but still, the point stands.)

Nadal has the Longest single-surface winning streak of 81 matches. > Sampras.

Well, Sampras DID go 66-4 on grass from '94-2000, and also won Wimby in 1993. So at the very least, he was the most dominant player on grass for a very very long time.
I'm a Fed fan, but come on, it's just way too early to make a case for Nadal as being better than Sampras, even at this stage in their careers I would say Sampras was a bit better, nevermind the fact that he had won another 9 slams from that point forward.

 

[GasquetGOAT]

Are you brain dead or somehting? Can't you see Nadal is done?
I will shave my head if he wins one more slam.

His calendar age may be 23 but biological age of certain body parts critical to pro tennis are way over 50.

I am sad for you my friend, but that is what it looks like.

Wow, biological age of over 50? A bit harsh isn't it? IMO Nadal will bounce back strong. I see him beating Murray in the American hardcourt season. Dog fight for the No.2 seat. Gonna be great.:twisted:

Oh and, expect to shave your head next French Open the lastest.:twisted:

 

[bruce38]

Nadal won't come anywhere near Pete when all is said and done. He will be in the company of McEnroe, Lendl, Connors and the like.

 

[GasquetGOAT]

Nadal needs to shorten his points if he wants to catch up to Sampras, his game may be too physical for sustained excellence. Bottomline is, give it time.

Federer has played Nadal on clay in 55% of their matches. Tell me, had Sampras played Agassi 55% of the time on clay, would he have a winning record?
Well, Sampras was 17-12 against Agassi on hardcourts, carpet and grass. So had they played another 30, Agassi would have to go 18-12 against Sampras in order to shift the H2H in his favor, which IMO is generous to Sampras.
It may seem as if I'm shooting myself in the foot here (arguing against Sampras), but my point is: it's skewed to look at H2H when most of the time it's one player's (BY FAR) best surface versus another players (BY FAR) worst surface, as is the case with Fed and Rafa (no, I'm not suggesting that clay is Agassi's best surface, but still, the point stands.

A fair post, I agree with most of it.

Maybe title was a bit too provocative I should have word it a little better. But like a poster above said, by age analysis he can be greater even than Federer. Which was exactly my point, that if he wins another 4-6 slams he certainly would have a good case against Sampras. A couple more he would be in Federer's territory, of course depending on how many Federer ends up with.

 

[zagor]

Let's see,
before turning 23 Nadal had already won 6 majors which is better than Sampras' 5 majors at the same age.

What matters is the finish line,not the start.

Nadal's 2008 season was better than any of Sampras' seasons with two slams -French and Wimbledon double, an Olympic Gold Medal and Davis Cup.

I can agree with that although Pete's '93,'94 and '95 are close.

Olympic Gold Medal, Nadal 1 > Sampras 0

Since when does Olympic Medal factor in GOAT discussions? I mean Nicholas Massu won the gold medal for chrissakes.

Nadal has won 15 Masters series titles > Sampras 11.

When we're comparing legends of such caliber it comes down to slams,not masters titles,sorry.

Nadal has won 4 consective French Open titles, Sampras never reached the final at Roland Garros, not even once.

So? Sampras has 5 USO titles,Nadla hasn't reached the final once(not saying he won't but hasn't so far).

Nadal has won slams on 3 different surfaces > Sampras only won on 2 (Grass and Hardcourt).

Okay,that point I can see and agree on,credit to Nadal.

Nadal has a leading H2H record against the G.O.A.T Federer, 13-7. Sampras has never beaten Federer.

Sorry that's a bit ridiculous,first of all Fed being the GOAT is an opinion,not a fact and Nadal has played Fed 20 times compare to Pete playing him once so much more chances to score win(s).

Nadal has the Longest single-surface winning streak of 81 matches. > Sampras.

That's impressive from Nadal no doubt but again for me personally it comes down to slams,if Nadal wins less than 7 FOs I'd still find Sampras dominance on grass more impressive than Nadal's dominance on clay.

If Nadal can win another 4-6 slams which is quite reasonable (remember he is only 23, time is on his side), making a total of 12 slams and plus all these impressive records already over Sampras, he would be greater than Sampras.

That's all coulda woulda,when Nadal wins 12 slams we'll talk again.