Rafa is ahead of Pete on the ATG list

[BobbyOne]

Top 6 all time for me personally is:
1. Roger Federer
2. Rod Laver
3. Pete Sampras
4. Rafael Nadal
5. Bjorn Borg
6. Novak Djokovic

Backspin, Why do you rank Laver very high but his about as strong colleagues, Gonzalez and Rosewall, rather low? Are you aware that Rosewall won more very big tournaments than Laver (25 to 19-21)?

 

[Backspin1183]

Backspin, Why do you rank Laver very high but his about as strong colleagues, Gonzalez and Rosewall, rather low? Are you aware that Rosewall won more very big tournaments than Laver (25 to 19-21)?

Because of his 2 calendar year grand Slam records, including one of them in the open era.

 

[Tennis_Monk]

Not my cup of tea but thought I would chime in anyway.



How does it matter if the surfaces were homigenized or not. Players can only play on the conditions of their time.A goat would win regardless of conditions and not make excuses.

In my book,It doesn't matter if Nadal can beat Sampras in 90's settings or Sampras can or can't beat Nadal in current settings.

Fact is Nadal won slams on all major surfaces of his time while Sampras didn't.

Irrespective,Goat train left Sampras station long while ago.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Baseline porn

Baseline and Serve N' Volley porn. In other words, perfection.

 

[RF-18]

Well they would all have a chance but would they win is the question. It's a totally different game with fast grass and serve and volleyers. They would have had to adapt to compete and wouldn't be able to rely on the way they play now. The advantage Djokovic has over Nadal is he likes the low bouncing surfaces, doesn't have huge swings on his groundstrokes and even had a good record on fast carpet early in his career. Would have been interesting...

If they were growing up during those conditions, they would obviously adapt to it and train to fit on those surfaces. It's kinda tough to put players up against players in other eras where they have trained their whole life under conditions they are used to. That's why it is a bit unfair to put Nadal and Djokovic on conditions against players of that time that are used to such conditions. Doesn't work like that I'm a afraid.

I bet if you put up Sampras/Agassi in his prime just like that who was used to rebound ace up against experienced Djokovic on plexicushion he'd get crushed. But it is unfair, cause their games weren't trained for Plexi.

 

[abmk]

If they were growing up during those conditions, they would obviously adapt to it and train to fit on those surfaces. It's kinda tough to put players up against players in other eras where they have trained their whole life under conditions they are used to. That's why it is a bit unfair to put Nadal and Djokovic on conditions against players of that time that are used to such conditions. Doesn't work like that I'm a afraid.

I bet if you put up Sampras/Agassi in his prime just like that who was used to rebound ace up against Djokovic on plexicushion he'd get crushed. But it is unfair, cause their games weren't trained for Plexi.

not even remotely the same.

Sampras/Agassi would adjust fine to plexi. (its not a country mile different from rebound ace). Both had success on every kind of HC - slow, medium , fast.

the current grass compared to the low, uneven bouncing, slick grass of the 90s
and the current indoor surfaces (more so from 2010 or so ) compared to the ones in the 90s

are a completely different story.

 

[RF-18]

not even remotely the same.

Sampras/Agassi would adjust fine to plexi. (its not a country mile different from rebound ace). Both had success on every kind of HC - slow, medium , fast.

the current grass compared to the low, uneven bouncing, slick grass of the 90s
and the current indoor surfaces (more so from 2010 or so ) compared to the ones in the 90s

are a completely different story.

I'd say Djokovic and Nadal, with their talent, would adjust aswell.

But my point was that we cannot directly put them into conditions in other eras and say ''well they wouldn't do well or they would have tough''. That simply isn't fair. They did not grow up and train under such conditions, while if they did, they would of course train, adapt and polish their games to those conditions.

 

[abmk]

I'd say Djokovic and Nadal, with their talent, would adjust aswell.

But my point was that we cannot directly put them into conditions in other eras and say ''well they wouldn't do well or they would have tough''. That simply isn't fair. They did not grow up and train under such conditions, while if they did, they would of course train, adapt and polish their games for such conditions.

they would adjust, but have clearly less success than now.

sampras simply had to adjust far more according to the conditions and faced more styles of play. that's a fact.
its part of the reason for his non-success on clay ( movement being a more factor of course)

nadal can't even adjust to the indoor conditions of now and you think he'd do better in the 90s with serves flying all over him and flat shots resulting in winners? fat chance.

djoko has trouble with players who don't give him rhythm , though when in top form, he can overcome that to an extent. and that is in this era with less variety.

its why Bjorn Borg's 3 channel slams are so legendary and you could still argue he's the 2nd or 3rd best player of the open era.
grinded like batsh*t crazy at RG and 2 weeks later, SnVing at wimbledon, playing aggressive tennis.

 

[RF-18]

they would adjust, but have clearly less success than now.

sampras simply had to adjust far more according to the conditions and faced more styles of play. that's a fact.
its part of the reason for his non-success on clay ( movement being a more factor of course)

nadal can't even adjust to the indoor conditions of now and you think he'd do better in the 90s with serves flying all over him and flat shots resulting in winners? fat chance.

djoko has trouble with players who don't give him rhythm , though when in top form, he can overcome that to an extent. and that is in this era with less variety.

its why Bjorn Borg was so legendary and you could still argue 2nd or 3rd best player of the open era.
grinded like batsh*t crazy at RG and 2 weeks later, SnVing at wimbledon, playing aggressive tennis.

I believe it's unfair and impossible putting players into other eras and different conditions where they are not trained and grown up to play under it.

You think from this era, someone like berdych, would train to play on the baseline more than on the net if he was growing up in 80's on grass and fast conditions? Hell no. He would adjust according to the conditions. And who knows, maybe he would do ten times better at the net than how he is playing tennis now and crush them all, and we would be in here talking about Berdych as the grass court goat instead of sampras and federer?

That is why this should be a non discussion. It is impossible to compare stuff like this.

 

[abmk]

I believe it's unfair and impossible putting players into other eras and different conditions where they are not trained and grown up to play under it.

That is why this should be a non discussion. It is impossible to compare stuff like this.

that's only because it doesn't suit your boy djokovic.

And even if you don't want to speculate, and I mean if -> its a fact that sampras had it tougher with respect to the difference in conditions and styles of play compared to nadal/djoko.

so is djoko's troubles with players who don't give him rhythm (unless he is in real good form )
so is nadal's troubles on the indoor courts of today.

You think from this era, someone like berdych, would train to play on the baseline more than on the net if he was growing up in 80's on grass and fast conditions? Hell no. He would adjust according to the conditions. And who knows, maybe he would do ten times better at the net than what he is doing now and crush them all, and we would be in here talking about Berdych as the grass court goat instead of sampras and federer?

umm, no.

 

[abmk]

Baseline porn

what are you on about ? USO 2001 QF was more of SnVer vs baseliner.

 

[zep]

No one except a few Fed fanatics with certain agendas cares about what would have happened if Nadal played in the 1990s or Pete played today kind of scenarios. That is an idiotic assumption/comparison altogether. IMO Nadal has now clearly moved ahead of Sampras.

 

[RF-18]

that's only because it doesn't suit your boy djokovic.

And even if you don't want to speculate, and I mean if -> its a fact that sampras had it tougher with respect to the difference in conditions and styles of play compared to nadal/djoko.

so is djoko's troubles with players who don't give him rhythm (unless he is in real good form )
so is nadal's troubles on the indoor courts of today.




umm, no.

Nah, I disagree. I think alot is speculation and very little facts.

You cannot look at todays players weaknesses and draw a conclusion of that on how they would fare the way tennis was played 30 years ago. Doesn't work like that, sorry.

 

[NoleFam]

If they were growing up during those conditions, they would obviously adapt to it and train to fit on those surfaces. It's kinda tough to put players up against players in other eras where they have trained their whole life under conditions they are used to. That's why it is a bit unfair to put Nadal and Djokovic on conditions against players of that time that are used to such conditions. Doesn't work like that I'm a afraid.

I bet if you put up Sampras/Agassi in his prime just like that who was used to rebound ace up against experienced Djokovic on plexicushion he'd get crushed. But it is unfair, cause their games weren't trained for Plexi.

Sampras wouldn't be great on plexicushion and to be honest, Agassi was better than him on Rebound Ace and never lost to him on the surface. It's hard to compare this generation with Sampras/Agassi because the conditions are pretty different. Yea but you hit the nail on the head.

 

[BobbyOne]

Because of his 2 calendar year grand Slam records, including one of them in the open era.

Backspin, I cannot agree. If you are focused on the (true) Grand Slam you should rank Laver ahead of Federer because Roger has not achieved that biggest achievement in tennis. But the (true) Grand Slam is not the one and all. Winning majors is also very important. Rosewall has won more majors than both Federer and Laver and was not allowed to enter the Grand Slam tournaments from 1957 to 1967. Gonzalez won 14 to 17 majors (the status of Forest Hills ToC might be doubtful) plus he won seven big world series against strongest players.

Laver's 1962 Grand Slam does not qualify Rod for a top five place as it was achieved only against amateurs (Rosewall, Gonzalez, Hoad and other pros being absent). It was a greater achievement when Laver won the 1967 "Pro Grand Slam", a feat that only he and Rosewall realized (the latter in 1963).

 

[Xemi666]

It can be safely said that there is no argument for Sampras being above Nadal anymore, surely?

 

[Sport]

It can be safely said that there is no argument for Sampras being above Nadal anymore, surely?

Except if your name is @KingKyrgios. He said because Sampras is better on 2 surfaces (grass and hard), he is better overall than Nadal. But he forgot to mention Sampras only adapted to 2 of the 3 surfaces. Nadal adapted to the 3 surfaces, winning Majors on each one (hard, grass and clay), therefore showing to be overall more complete.

In short, 16 GS and Career Grand Slam > 14 GS with no French Open.

And all the speculation "if Nadal had played in the 90s" or "if Sampras had played after 2001" is just that, especulation. Untestable claims lack verisimilitude. Claims that cannot be tested are, by their very nature, pseudoscientific. Nobody can prove Nadal wouldn't have won any Wimbledon title in the 90s, when even Agassi did it, and Agassi lacked the velocity and weapons of Nadal. And nobody can prove Sampras could only have won 2 or 3 Wimbledon titles in the post 2001 era, making him a player of less than 10 Majors. Remember a 29 years old Sampras hasn't proved to be able to defeat Roger in fast grass, go figure in the slower grass.

 

[TennisATP]

Not my cup of tea but thought I would chime in anyway.



How does it matter if the surfaces were homigenized or not. Players can only play on the conditions of their time.A goat would win regardless of conditions and not make excuses.

In my book,It doesn't matter if Nadal can beat Sampras in 90's settings or Sampras can or can't beat Nadal in current settings.

Fact is Nadal won slams on all major surfaces of his time while Sampras didn't.

Irrespective,Goat train left Sampras station long while ago.

Exactly, especially since someone in Sampras' time was able to win all 4 slams: Agassi.

 

[NatF]

Except if your name is

And all the speculation "if Nadal had played in the 90s" or "if Sampras had played after 2001" is just that, especulation. Untestable claims lack verisimilitude. Claims that cannot be tested are, by their very nature, pseudoscientific. Nobody can prove Nadal wouldn't have won any Wimbledon title in the 90s, when even Agassi did it, and Agassi lacked the velocity and weapons of Nadal. And nobody can prove Sampras could only have won 2 or 3 Wimbledon titles in the post 2001 era, making him a player of less than 10 Majors. Remember a 29 years old Sampras hasn't proved to be able to defeat Roger in fast grass, go figure in the slower grass.

Your analysis of Agassi's ability and weapons on grass are a bit off base. For one Agassi had the clearly superior return of serve which counts for a lot on grass, the second and more pertinent point is that Agassi excelled at taking the ball on the rise. Andre was the master at standing on the baseline, Nadal tends to drop deep when pressured which is not a winning strategy on grass where the ball bounces lower.[/user]

 

[thrust]

Except if your name is @KingKyrgios. He said because Sampras is better on 2 surfaces (grass and hard), he is better overall than Nadal. But he forgot to mention Sampras only adapted to 2 of the 3 surfaces. Nadal adapted to the 3 surfaces, winning Majors on each one (hard, grass and clay), therefore showing to be overall more complete.

In short, 16 GS and Career Grand Slam > 14 GS with no French Open.

And all the speculation "if Nadal had played in the 90s" or "if Sampras had played after 2001" is just that, especulation. Untestable claims lack verisimilitude. Claims that cannot be tested are, by their very nature, pseudoscientific. Nobody can prove Nadal wouldn't have won any Wimbledon title in the 90s, when even Agassi did it, and Agassi lacked the velocity and weapons of Nadal. And nobody can prove Sampras could only have won 2 or 3 Wimbledon titles in the post 2001 era, making him a player of less than 10 Majors. Remember a 29 years old Sampras hasn't proved to be able to defeat Roger in fast grass, go figure in the slower grass.

Players accomplishments can only fairly be compared to the competition of their era. Any great player adapts to the playing surfaces and other conditions of their time. IMO, both Rafa and Pete would and could have done so. I am a Sampras fan who had always liked Rafa, but there can be little doubt that with this USO win Rafa has surpassed Pete accomplishment wise, if not before. Also, Rafa winning his tenth FO, on the most difficult surface, is an incredible achievement. There is an obvious why Roger skipped the clay season and few have won the FO after turning 30. For me Novak is still behind Pete, but not by much, primarily due to his much better clay court accomplishments. Open Era Greats: 1-Federer,2-Nadal,3-Sampras, 4-Djokovic, 5-Borg, 6-Lendl, 7-Agassi.

 

[thrust]

Backspin, I cannot agree. If you are focused on the (true) Grand Slam you should rank Laver ahead of Federer because Roger has not achieved that biggest achievement in tennis. But the (true) Grand Slam is not the one and all. Winning majors is also very important. Rosewall has won more majors than both Federer and Laver and was not allowed to enter the Grand Slam tournaments from 1957 to 1967. Gonzalez won 14 to 17 majors (the status of Forest Hills ToC might be doubtful) plus he won seven big world series against strongest players.

Laver's 1962 Grand Slam does not qualify Rod for a top five place as it was achieved only against amateurs (Rosewall, Gonzalez, Hoad and other pros being absent). It was a greater achievement when Laver won the 1967 "Pro Grand Slam", a feat that only he and Rosewall realized (the latter in 1963).

I Agree. Laver and Rosewall, as great as they were in the open era, their accomplishments on the pro tour were superior. That is not to deny Rod's great 69 achievements or Ken's great longevity winning major tournaments ages 35-37, but they were still just past their peak after 1970, especially Ken who was 33 when the open era began.

 

[thrust]

No one except a few Fed fanatics with certain agendas cares about what would have happened if Nadal played in the 1990s or Pete played today kind of scenarios. That is an idiotic assumption/comparison altogether. IMO Nadal has now clearly moved ahead of Sampras.

True, and well put!

 

[thrust]

You have to balance versatility (i.e. "ATG on multiple surfaces") vs dominance on each surface (even for an "ATG")

Not all "ATGs" on a surface" are equal... And I think Nadal on clay is top of the tree on that

Not all surfaces are created equal either. As far as slams go, today hard is worth double clay and grass... there was a three year period in Borg's time when 2/4 (and more importantly 2/3 of the ones he entered) were played on clay. Laver had 3/4 on grass

You'd also have to look for lack of weaknesses as a factor. Sampras, obviously has the glaring one on clay for example. By contrast, Borg's pretty solid even on his personal weakest area (hard courts). Nadal has a debatable oddity indoors

Layers upon layers - nothings simple in ATG talk - probably more so than usual where Nadal and his clay heavy resume is concerned

Tennisbase ranks Rosewall highest on all court surface success than Any other All Time Great, by far.

 

[TennisATP]

It's funny how for Federer he's automatically the GOAT because 19 > the rest. But for Nadal somehow 16 > 14 or 16 > 12 is not automatic. lol

 

[Thomas195]

Andre was the master at standing on the baseline

And even inside the baseline when returning.

 

[Sport]

It's funny how for Federer he's automatically the GOAT because 19 > the rest. But for Nadal somehow 16 > 14 or 16 > 12 is not automatic. lol

Relax. Look at the results of the poll. And the poll started when Nadal had 14 Grand Slams!

 

[deacsyoga]

I actually have Borg and Djokovic in between them so yes for me clearly.

Open Era:

1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Djokovic
4. Borg
5. Sampras

 

[Druss]

Nadal will most likely add another 50-80 weeks at No1 and another YE No1 is on the horizon, so yeah plus he has 2 more slams, career slam, 2 x OG gold, 30 Masters he is ahead of Pistol Pete now. To really cement it tough, he desperately needs at least 1 WTF, that is a big hole in his resume.

 

[Druss]

I actually have Borg and Djokovic in between them so yes for me clearly.

Open Era:

1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Djokovic
4. Borg
5. Sampras

I agree if Djokovic wins another 2 majors. Until then he is at No 5 IMO.

 

[deacsyoga]

I agree if Djokovic wins another 2 majors. Until then he is at No 5 IMO.

I respect your opinion. I feel Djokovic's much greater versatility (considering how poor Sampras was on clay and that he managed only 2 of his 14 slams at the 2 slow court majors), his record # of Masters titles, his much greater consistency, and his amazing 2011 and 2015 which dump all over any year Sampras had are sufficient to rank over Sampras.

As for Borg while I regard his 11 majors a bit different due to the Australian Open situation then, he never won the U.S Open (even with it on clay a few years), never won a hard court slam, and while partly due to the controversial ranking system spent only a bit over 100 weeks at #1. He also isnt the GOAT of any slam which Djokovic is at the Australian Open. Then their are Djokovic's 6 YEC titles.

So I feel justified in ranking Djokovic over both.

 

[deacsyoga]

Nadal will most likely add another 50-80 weeks at No1 and another YE No1 is on the horizon, so yeah plus he has 2 more slams, career slam, 2 x OG gold, 30 Masters he is ahead of Pistol Pete now. To really cement it tough, he desperately needs at least 1 WTF, that is a big hole in his resume.

The lack of even a RG final is a much bigger hole than the YEC. So no he does need that to cement anything over Pete.

 

[Slightly D1]

I understand how this may have been a slight discussion in May but la decima and a 3rd US Open pretty much seals this. 16 majors > 14 majors, has won every major and did it during an incredibly competitive era with competition among the big 4 and a strong cast of secondary competition. Its Fed and Nadal at the top of tennis history and it all rests on how Nadal does in 2018, 2019 and 2020 as to whether he will finish as the single GOAT or not.

 

[Druss]

The lack of even a RG final is a much bigger hole than the YEC. So no he does need that to cement anything over Pete.

You don't need to convince me. I have no doubt Nadal is ahead of Sampras. What I mean is to silence those few on TTW (and elsewhere) who still think Sampras is greater because of his superior WTFs, YE No1s and weeks at No1, Nadal would need to win the WTF. You can't deny it is a big hole in his resume. It looks like now he will go over 200 weeks at No1 and with 4 YE No1s (unless Fed goes on an onslaught in the indoor season) the Sampras fans will only have the WTF argument left.

 

[Daniel Johnson]

It can be safely said that there is no argument for Sampras being above Nadal anymore, surely?

Absolutely. None

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[metsman]

Unfortunately, Nadal has to rank over Sampras now. It's a very sad day.

 

[TMF]

It's funny how for Federer he's automatically the GOAT because 19 > the rest. But for Nadal somehow 16 > 14 or 16 > 12 is not automatic. lol

Federer righteous goat title isn't just because of his 19 slams, but because he has 6 WTF and 302 weeks at the #1. He holds the most ATP records.

While I believe most fans have Nadal is ahead of Pete and Nole, but don't pretend that there are other important achievements that Nadal is behind, like zero WTF and 144 weeks at #1.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Unfortunately, Nadal has to rank over Sampras now. It's a very sad day.

We may soon have to accept that he ranks over Laver as well...

 

[Sport]

Sampras dominated his era, winning twice as many slams as his nearest rival. Nadal is at best tied for second in his own era.

How can Nadal possiby be greater than Sampras when he wasn't even the greatest amongst his own contemporaries?

Weak argument. Sampras would not be the best of his era with Federer. Also, how do you know Nadal is not the best of his era if he still hasn't retired? For now, he dominates the H2H with Federer just like Sampras dominated the H2H with Agassi.

Also 16 GS and Career Grand Slam> 14 Grand Slams and 0 French Open.

 

[Sport]

LOL Fed would have arguably have went down as one of the greatest clay courters ever if it weren't for Rafa. He would have 5 FOs if not for Rafa And Djokovic is a beast on clay as well. Djoker would likely have 4 FOs if not for Rafa. The problem is Rafas win percentage on clay is higher than any other player on any other surface in the history of tennis.

As far as inflated H2H comparisons..... Rafa still holds a 8-5 lead on outdoor hardcourts. Fed has a 2-1 edge on grass and 5-1 on indoor hard. Only 3 grass meetings were wimbledon finals. Rafa was 20 for the first one and lost. Second one was 21 and took Roger to 5 sets. 3rd one at age 22 he won. Feds grass court "advantage" is a bit misleading since Rafa wasn't even in his prime yet even when he beat fed at age 22 and fed was full on prime in all 3 matches. Slam finals H2H? Rafa has a 6-3 advantage. 4-0 Clay, 1-2 Grass, 1-1 Hard. Only one of those 3 to win the channel slam...... And he's done it twice. But yet he is "just a clay courter". ha!

Don't forget the 9-3 H2H overall in Grand Slams for Nadal over Federer.

 

[spirit95]

Also 16 GS and Career Grand Slam> 14 Grand Slams and 0 French Open.

Meaningless

When javelin throwing records used to get broken at every tournament people understood that javelin throwers weren't magically becoming more amazing with each generation but that the technology was continually improving. The same thing is happening in tennis. In days gone by a career slam was a once in a generation event and only 2 players had won double digit slams. Now both those things happen three times in a single decade. There is clearly some circumstantial change which makes it easier than before for players to dominate the sport. So when comparing between eras ABSOLUTE numbers and values shouldn't have too much importance placed on them and it's better to focus on RELATIVE values

And Sampras utterly dominated his contemporaries in terms of slams and weeks #1, whilst Nadal isn't really close to Federer in slams and is miles behind even the third best player of his generation in #1 weeks, Djokovic.

 

[Jon Snow]

Nadal was ahead of Pete when Nadal won FO 2014.

 

[The_Order]

Nadal was ahead of Pete when Nadal won FO 2014.

Yep he had won all 4 majors but also should mention different eras so can't really compare.