Nole > Sampras but Nadal < Nole: Why the double standard ?

T

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
According to some fans, if Nole > Sampras because of 15>14, but why can't Nadal > Nole because of 17>15 especially when there's 2 to 1 slam difference?

I mean the argument for Nole is because he has more weeks at #1 and more YE #1 than Nadal, but the same can be argue for Pete has more than Nole.
Nole has more single titles than Pete, but Nadal has more than Nole.
Nole has 2 more Wimbledon than Nadal, but Sampras has 3 more than Nole.
MS1000 is also use against Sampras, but Nadal has more than Nole, not to mention one can argue for Nadal with his 2 Olympic Gold medals while Nole only has the Bronze.
H2H against rivalries(which I think it's irrelevant) is also an argument for Nole, but some failed to realize that Sampras had a positive H2H against his main rivalries.


With that being said, the contradictions went all over the place when Nole fans attempt to evaluate these 3 players in ATG.
 
TripleATeam

TripleATeam

G.O.A.T.
Nadal is greater, but these guys argue these points because stats are done on aggregate. Not a single one of these suggests one is better than the others, it's a holistic approach.

The only people who take one set of achievements into account are those who rank slams above all else, and those who do so undoubtedly have Nadal above Novak already. All other rankings are subjective value judgements about which criteria are greater than the others.
 
NatF

NatF

Bionic Poster
Djokovic and Nadal are basically neck and neck for me now, I definitely lean towards Djokovic but what mostly gives me pause is the fact that Nadal has been a factor at the top winning slams since 2005 - which is pretty crazy. That's sort of an intangible though, in terms of overall record I like Djokovic for his dominance, 4 in a row, greater spell at #1, greater balance in his resume etc...
 
Phoenix1983

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
NatF said:
Djokovic and Nadal are basically neck and neck for me now, I definitely lean towards Djokovic but what mostly gives me pause is the fact that Nadal has been a factor at the top winning slams since 2005 - which is pretty crazy. That's sort of an intangible though, in terms of overall record I like Djokovic for his dominance, 4 in a row, greater spell at #1, greater balance in his resume etc...
Click to expand...

What’s weird is that Nadal has almost become the modern day Rosewall (in the sense that he’s been at, or near the top from his teens to his thirties, always winning slams, but never the dominant player of any era). I know he likely won’t quite have Rosewall’s longevity, but I hope you get my point.

Whereas up to around 2012, the closest comparison was to Borg (incredible early success with a highly physical game, founded on clay courts but branching out to win on other surfaces, and likely to burn out by his mid 20s).
 
Towny

Towny

Hall of Fame
Novak has several reasons for being considered greater than Nadal. His NCYGS, 5 YEC to 0, being better at 3 of the 4 slams etc. It's not just the time at number 1, but it includes that as well.

That being said, I still regard Nadal as greater and probably won't budge on that unless Novak reaches 17. 17 > 15 isn't the only reason I have Nadal ahead.
 
F

FRV

Guest
I've always thought Djokovic is greater than Nadal and will become greater than Fed, just for his sheer ability to dominate the field and win slams. However, his loss of form is cause for concern. Nadal is consistently great and only seems to struggle with Djokovic and recently Federer (though they haven't played for a while so who knows if Fed can still beat Nadal).

Of the Big 3, it seems Nadal is the best when facing average to good players (This probably wouldn't be true if Nole never lost form). I never feel like Nadal might have an off day, and when it comes to slams, I'm always thinking only Djokovic or Federer have a shot at taking him out. Though I've been wrong recently, as Thiem almost took him out at the US Open (but Nadal was injured so who knows).
 
T

Tennis_Hands

Banned
Towny said:
Novak has several reasons for being considered greater than Nadal. His NCYGS, 5 YEC to 0, being better at 3 of the 4 slams etc. It's not just the time at number 1, but it includes that as well.

That being said, I still regard Nadal as greater and probably won't budge on that unless Novak reaches 17. 17 > 15 isn't the only reason I have Nadal ahead.
Click to expand...

The biggest part of Nadal's upheld position over Djokovic is that he battled peak Federer as opposed to Djokovic, and that he beat Djokovic on HC in a way that should have never happened, so it is not only about what Nadal doesn't have.

If Djokovic levels the score in the Majors, or even if he is one short, but do it in an impressive way, I will put him above Nadal.

Right now he is below.

:cool:
 
NatF

NatF

Bionic Poster
Phoenix1983 said:
What’s weird is that Nadal has almost become the modern day Rosewall (in the sense that he’s been at, or near the top from his teens to his thirties, always winning slams, but never the dominant player of any era). I know he likely won’t quite have Rosewall’s longevity, but I hope you get my point.

Whereas up to around 2012, the closest comparison was to Borg (incredible early success with a highly physical game, founded on clay courts but branching out to win on other surfaces, and likely to burn out by his mid 20s).
Click to expand...

Yeah it's weird I can see parallels between Rosewall and Nadal, but also Federer and Rosewall too e.g. longevity, won arguably more than his rivals but lost the h2h etc..
 
E

EasyGoing

Professional
FRV said:
I've always thought Djokovic is greater than Nadal and will become greater than Fed, just for his sheer ability to dominate the field and win slams. However, his loss of form is cause for concern. Nadal is consistently great and only seems to struggle with Djokovic and recently Federer (though they haven't played for a while so who knows if Fed can still beat Nadal).

Of the Big 3, it seems Nadal is the best when facing average to good players (This probably wouldn't be true if Nole never lost form). I never feel like Nadal might have an off day, and when it comes to slams, I'm always thinking only Djokovic or Federer have a shot at taking him out. Though I've been wrong recently, as Thiem almost took him out at the US Open (but Nadal was injured so who knows).
Click to expand...

This would be a good post if the Big 3 started to play in 2017. But seeing how they have been around for a good decade and more, you are wrong on every count. Rafa is the one most likely to lose to just about anyone off clay, and Roger and Nole are the ones that are super consistent. As for dominating the field and winning slams, nobody has done it like Roger has.

Even though you are wrong, it’s still a good attempt. Don’t get discouraged.
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
Nadal is greater than Djokovic.

Lets talk if Djokovic equals Nadal's slam count. I would probably still be hesitant to put Djokovic ahead if he comes to within one, but I would put him ahead, if both have equal number of slams.
 
Towny

Towny

Hall of Fame
Tennis_Hands said:
The biggest part of Nadal's upheld position over Djokovic is that he battled peak Federer as opposed to Djokovic, and that he beat Djokovic on HC in a way that should have never happened, so it is not only about what Nadal doesn't have.

If Djokovic levels the score in the Majors, or even if he is one short, but do it in an impressive way, I will put him above Nadal.

Right now he is below.
Click to expand...
I'd agree with the reasoning you've given. Furthermore, I have several reasons. Nadal is ahead in almost every type of tournament. 17 slams to 15. 33 masters to 32. 1 OSG to 0. 20 ATP 500s to 12. They're tied on 250s 9 each and of course Djokovic has the significant lead on YEC.

He also has better longevity, insane single surface dominance and successfully beating prime Fed at Wimbledon and the AO as well as Nole at the USO, while not losing to either at RG in his prime.

Nole has his reasons too of course. Maybe if he wins this RG to have 2 NCYGS I'll consider putting him ahead. Not sure
 
NatF

NatF

Bionic Poster
Hitman said:
Nadal is greater than Djokovic.

Lets talk if Djokovic equals Nadal's slam count. I would probably still be hesitant to put Djokovic ahead if he comes to within one, but I would put him ahead, if both have equal number of slams.
Click to expand...

What if neither guys wins a slam for the rest of the year but Djokovic ends at #1? Maybe with another WTF? Still Nadal ahead?
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
NatF said:
What if neither guys wins a slam for the rest of the year but Djokovic ends at #1? Maybe with another WTF? Still Nadal ahead?
Click to expand...

For me, yes, Nadal still ahead.

We had Federer over Sampras at 15 slams to 14 slams with less year ending number ones and less WTF. I would say a two slam difference is still a lot. One slam, and I'd say they are even.
 
F

FRV

Guest
Zhilady said:
You don’t win debates by playing Tennis matches.
Click to expand...
The tennis match wasn't for the debate, I already admitted I could be wrong. I just don't like him because he's an a-hole and I want to give him the beat down.

Edit: I admit I was in the wrong here
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BeatlesFan

BeatlesFan

Bionic Poster
FRV said:
I just started watching tennis. How about we meet up and play some real tennis so I can shut your cheeky ass up?
Click to expand...
This is a tennis discussion forum, not a forum to aggressively challenge other people here to playing a match. And if you've only just started watching tennis, why are you so rudely challenging people who have watched tennis for decades? It's not like you have any foundation of knowledge about the sport, so isn't it better to listen and learn?
 
Towser83

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
Nadal is still slightly great than Djokovic at this point but it's close because of a lot of areas Djokovic leads outside of slam count.

With Djokovic and Sampras, Sampras does lead a few areas like weeks at number 1 and YEN1 but Djokovic also has not only the career slam but holding all 4 at once, so in a way looking at all factors and not just slams, he's a little further from Sampras than Nadal is from him. The order is still Nadal, Djokovic, Sampras though
 
F

FRV

Guest
BeatlesFan said:
This is a tennis discussion forum, not a forum to aggressively challenge other people here to playing a match. And if you've only just started watching tennis, why are you so rudely challenging people who have watched tennis for decades? It's not like you have any foundation of knowledge about the sport, so isn't it better to listen and learn?
Click to expand...
Did you read his comment towards me? I admit I'm rudely aggressive in my challenge, but he just straight up insulted me for no reason.
 
F

frodobaggins

Rookie
Djokovic is ahead of Sampras in almost everything or tied in a couple like WTF titles, in addition to being over in slams. The only thing Sampras is ahead is time at #1. Djokovic was clearly ahead of Sampras when both had 14 slams as he had a better overall career, many would have had him ahead at 13 slams. He did not even need to be at 15 to be ahead of Sampras, he clearly was before that, 15 just makes it even more obvious than it already was. Dumb thread.

As for Nadal vs Djokovic, Djokovic is ahead of Nadal in everything except slam wins. That is why some (but many still do not) have him ahead 2 slams behind.
 
TheAssassin

TheAssassin

G.O.A.T.
I don't rank Djokovic greater than Nadal yet but it is very close. His dominance and consistency is something only Federer can brag about as well. Nobody else. What he's done deserves praise of the highest order.
 
E

EasyGoing

Professional
FRV said:
The tennis match wasn't for the debate, I already admitted I could be wrong. I just don't like him because he's an a-hole and I want to give him the beat down.
Click to expand...
FRV said:
Did you read his comment towards me? I admit I'm rudely aggressive in my challenge, but he just straight up insulted me for no reason.
Click to expand...

Wait, is this about my reply to your first post here? Cause I didn’t see anyone else reply to it.
 
T

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
MajesticTennisManiac said:
Outside slams,
Djokovic > Nadal

But Sampras not > Djokovic.

That's the basic gist of the argument in OP
Click to expand...

Nadal is ahead in single titles, and MS1000.
Sampras is ahead in weeks at #1 and YE #1.

There's nothing clear as black and white between these player's achievements outside of the slams.

I'm not interested in who's should be place above the other, but the debate should be consistent when applying the criteria in evaluating their status rather playing the double-standard to suit one's favorite player.

:cool:
 
DRII

DRII

G.O.A.T.
Tennis_Hands said:
The biggest part of Nadal's upheld position over Djokovic is that he battled peak Federer as opposed to Djokovic, and that he beat Djokovic on HC in a way that should have never happened, so it is not only about what Nadal doesn't have.

If Djokovic levels the score in the Majors, or even if he is one short, but do it in an impressive way, I will put him above Nadal.

Right now he is below.

:cool:
Click to expand...
very level headed/decent, and thus surprising, post from you...

o_O
 
E

EasyGoing

Professional
FRV said:
Yes
Click to expand...

Dear Lord... You waltzed in a tennis forum in a thread featuring Sampras, yet you quite obviously haven’t seen any tennis before 2017 - at best. You got the bare fundamentals completely wrong and I, quite politely actually, educated you on the topic. I also gave you encouragement and I wasn’t even being sarcastic.

If this good-natured reply riled you up so bad I can only advise you to leave the forum immediately. Your lack of tennis knowledge will be exposed in a second and the bullies here will eat you for breakfast.
 
C

Centrius

Hall of Fame
Zhilady said:
They’re both basically the same thing.

What do you think of Nadal having around 20 more Masters 1000 titles or their equivalents?

But the Spaniard is better on all 3 surfaces combined.
Click to expand...

But imo you can't combine surfaces because we have 2 hard court slams and just 1 on clay and 1 on grass.
 
F

FRV

Guest
EasyGoing said:
Dear Lord... You waltzed in a tennis forum in a thread featuring Sampras, yet you quite obviously haven’t seen any tennis before 2017 - at best. You got the bare fundamentals completely wrong and I, quite politely actually, educated you on the topic. I also gave you encouragement and I wasn’t even being sarcastic.

If this good-natured reply riled you up so bad I can only advise you to leave the forum immediately. Your lack of tennis knowledge will be exposed in a second and the bullies here will eat you for breakfast.
Click to expand...
I'm not going to believe you when you say that wasn't sarcastic, but okay then, I'll take your advice. I'll probably still post in the tips section to help people working on their serve, and post videos of my own though.
 
B

byealmeens

Semi-Pro
TMF said:
According to some fans, if Nole > Sampras because of 15>14, but why can't Nadal > Nole because of 17>15 especially when there's 2 to 1 slam difference?

I mean the argument for Nole is because he has more weeks at #1 and more YE #1 than Nadal, but the same can be argue for Pete has more than Nole.
Nole has more single titles than Pete, but Nadal has more than Nole.
Nole has 2 more Wimbledon than Nadal, but Sampras has 3 more than Nole.
MS1000 is also use against Sampras, but Nadal has more than Nole, not to mention one can argue for Nadal with his 2 Olympic Gold medals while Nole only has the Bronze.
H2H against rivalries(which I think it's irrelevant) is also an argument for Nole, but some failed to realize that Sampras had a positive H2H against his main rivalries.

With that being said, the contradictions went all over the place when Nole fans attempt to evaluate these 3 players in ATG.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I struggle with these threads … and should know better than to comment but here it goes. Why can’t we have different perspectives on “greatness”? In other words, why can’t Person A go by slam count alone, Person B by “completeness”, Person C by a combination, etc.? I really don’t see how anyone can truly prove one method is correct, and the others are not but many are dead set on doing just that. The truth is, all of these points have merit, and each of us has to determine what we value in these comparisons. It’s an interesting discussion no question, but the concept that one person’s view is “wrong” baffles me.

And to the OP… this is no knock on you so please forgive me if I’m coming off a bit critical. But to address your question, the reason the variance in logic exists is simply because different perspectives exist. Some DO feel Sampras is greater than Djokovic, despite the slam count. Some also feel Djokovic is greater than Nadal. I have even heard that Djokovic is a more complete player than Sampras. We can’t take the opinions of some and extrapolate them to contradict the logic of others. And more importantly, why would you want to? At the end of the day, they probably all have some very good points.

Lastly, the term “contradiction” is often inappropriate in these discussions as well. A long time college coach and good friend dubbed Novak the greatest ever because as he put it, “ He simply looks the part. Who else has ever looked more like the GOAT than Novak?” I mentioned Roger of course. He said, “Roger looks prettier, but weaker. Can’t explain it but he does. I know the stats may not support what I’m saying but my eyes tell me all I need to know.” Is this a contradiction? Maybe. However, opinions will often defy logic in certain ways, but that doesn’t make them less valid. Let’s be a little more careful.

Just my two cents … sorry for the rant. Carry on.
 
tenisdecente

tenisdecente

Hall of Fame
I dont dig Nadal, and I would love to see Djokovic surpassing him in the Slam count, but how you can state that Djokovic is more accomplished/the best between both with the Serb not ahead in the most important metric (aka Slams)?
Of course if Djokovic ties Nadal in GS count, he is way above Nadal in a lot of achievements. Until that moment, Nadal is ahead, sorry to tell you that guys
 
DRII

DRII

G.O.A.T.
FRV said:
I'm not going to believe you when you say that wasn't sarcastic, but okay then, I'll take your advice. I'll probably still post in the tips section to help people working on their serve, and post videos of my own though.
Click to expand...
LOL,

I liked your moxy...

LOL.

there are also plenty of other sections like odds and ends that you might find enjoyable and does not require vast player knowledge.

don't be afraid to post your opinion, no matter how many disagree with you, but if someone raises points you were unaware of - theres nothing wrong with admitting you didn't know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
  • Poll
If Sampras had Nole rather than Agassi in the 90s
2 3
Replies
105
Views
5K
Mr.Snrub
M
T
Ranking(YE #1 and weeks at #1) and Wimbledon only matters when it suits Nole's fans argument
2 3
Replies
106
Views
4K
Nole_King
N
T
  • Poll
Greater Hard Court Player: Sampras or Nole ?
2 3
Replies
116
Views
4K
user
user
winstonplum
Gotta Respect Nole
Replies
4
Views
560
sureshs
S
GabeT
  • Poll
Nole has aged better than Fedal. Will that continue?
5 6 7
Replies
327
Views
19K
SonnyT
S
Top