Rafa is ahead of Pete on the ATG list

[falstaff78]

Well, "two different sets of conditions" for Borg means grass and clay, which indeed is impressive. HC and grass? PFFFFF.

How many players have won 9 mayors in the same event, PLUS the Career Grand Slam?

whether you win 5 or 9 you are dominating a major. it's just a difference of degrees. FAR harder to win those last 4 at a different major.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

whether you win 5 or 9 you are dominating a major. it's just a difference of degrees. FAR harder to win those last 4 at a different major.

But it must be way tougher to win 9 than 5, or even 7, no? My guess is that it gets exponentially harder for many different reasons (including longevity).

#Subjectivity

 

[TMF]

Well, "two different sets of conditions" for Borg means grass and clay, which indeed is impressive. HC and grass? PFFFFF.

How many players have won 9 mayors in the same event, PLUS the Career Grand Slam?

HC/grass mastery is equally impressive as grass/clay mastery. Lendl won 5 slams on HC, including a record 8 straight USO final, but he wasn't able to master the grass. OTOH, Lendl master on both HC and clay.

 

[falstaff78]

But it must be way tougher to win 9 than 5, or even 7, no? My guess is that it gets exponentially harder for many different reasons (including longevity).

#Subjectivity

There's a slight logic fail here.

9+2+2+1 > 14+0+0+0

The latter is more unlikely, but the former is more impressive

But even if we discount distribution of majors because of #subjectivity (ie Pete's 5+5 and Nadal's career grand slam) we are left with:

Pete's 140 extra weeks + 5 extra YECs + undisputed domination of an era, which surely count for more than a bunch of masters titles

 

[mika1979]

in the entire 100+ year history of tennis, only three different men have won 5 majors at two different events. Federer, Borg and Sampras. Nadal is not even close. 5+5 is an incredibly rare and difficult feat, and shows total mastery of two different sets of conditions.

to me this feat, along with the extra weeks at number 1, the extra YECs, and being the undisputed best player of an era, more than makes up for the missing French.

By this logic Djokovic and laver are goats no? Holding all four at the same time?

 

[falstaff78]

By this logic Djokovic and laver are goats no? Holding all four at the same time?

Not sure why that follows. 4 in a row is an incredible achievement, and a factor in a player's greatness, but it's not an entire career.

Same with 5+5. It's an incredible achievement for Pete, and in my opinion contributes to him being greater than Nadal. But not in isolation.

 

[fednad]

Pete is better with the irons and has a more powerful drive.

But Rafa uses more olive oil, no ?

 

[Chadillac]

Fast courts are much more skilled. Pete also won the hair battle, was a close call. Once again nadal got an advantage (TUE) with the hair plugs, can this clown do anything naturally?

 

[Druss]

I thought the 'Federer-Nadal who is greater' threads were going round in circles....Sampras vs Nadal is on a different level altogether. Why doesn't OP put up a poll and only NON-Sampras/Nadal fans can vote.
Mine goes to Nadal.

 

[Deleted member 733170]

I thought the 'Federer-Nadal who is greater' threads were going round in circles....Sampras vs Nadal is on a different level altogether. Why doesn't OP put up a poll and only NON-Sampras/Nadal fans can vote.
Mine goes to Nadal.

Noted and poll duly added, sadly I can't control who votes...

 

[mika1979]

Not sure why that follows. 4 in a row is an incredible achievement, and a factor in a player's greatness, but it's not an entire career.

Same with 5+5. It's an incredible achievement for Pete, and in my opinion contributes to him being greater than Nadal. But not in isolation.

I think a career slam is more impressive

 

[zep]

I have both Nadal and Sampras tied at the moment. Both have their positives and negatives. If I must take one I'd take Nadal due to the level of competition he has had to face throughout his career although I'd understand if someone picks Sampras too. But if Nadal manages to win one more major he would move clearly ahead of Sampras.

 

[Manhattan]

As Rafa's #15 is in sight, I have to say that he is a better player than Pete.

-----------------------------
http://tennisfa.com/?p=7635

 

[falstaff78]

I think a career slam is more impressive

It's impressive no doubt.

But more impressive than 140 extra weeks at no 1, being the best player of an era and 5 YECs, and being one of only 3 guys with 5 at two majors?

 

[KINGROGER]

Sampras.

5 more wimbledons
3 more USOs

5v0 WTF
More weeks at number 1.

2 extra YE#1

Not bothered about winning a bunch of RG and clay masters.

 

[Chadillac]

Sampras.

5 more wimbledons
3 more USOs

5v0 WTF
More weeks at number 1.

2 extra YE#1

Not bothered about winning a bunch of RG and clay masters.

The wtf and being the best in the world puts pete over the top.

Rafa has the most weeks at #2 and the king of the worst grand slam.

 

[mika1979]

It's impressive no doubt.

But more impressive than 140 extra weeks at no 1, being the best player of an era and 5 YECs, and being one of only 3 guys with 5 at two majors?

It is a tough call I was a huge sampras fan from the day he started. Weeks at number at number 1 and winning 2x5 kind of go hand in hand, as well as winning the yecs. I think this speaks about the tour not being top heavy like it has with Rafa Fed and Novak. I think Sampras might have underachieved because of this, as he wasn't pushed and the other three definitely overachieved because of it. This is why it is hard to separate them. In fact I cant really separate novak rafa and pete. Fed is easy to do especially after the AO. But these 3 there really isn't much due to the different eras. Nadal isn't finished though which works in his favour. If he gets to number 1 and jags a non clay slam no contast at 2 all time. Winning more clay slams doesn't add as much to his legacy unless it is at Feds age. But in short I think they are so close in terms of achievements their is no point of splitting them.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

HC/grass mastery is equally impressive as grass/clay mastery. Lendl won 5 slams on HC, including a record 8 straight USO final, but he wasn't able to master the grass. OTOH, Lendl master on both HC and clay.

How many ATGs have beaten in slam finals all other ATGs of their era on their best surfaces?

Only one, and he owns your boy.

 

[BeatlesFan]

How many ATGs have beaten in slam finals all other ATGs of their era on their best surfaces?

Only one, and he owns your boy.

Remind us what ATG Nadal ever defeated in a USO final which was also his opponent's "best surface." The USO surface is clearly not Djoker's favorite surface. Nadal never defeated Djoker in an AO final either, which is clearly his dominant surface.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

Remind us what ATG Nadal ever defeated in a USO final which was also his opponent's "best surface." The USO surface is clearly not Djoker's favorite surface. Nadal never defeated Djoker in an AO final either, which is clearly his dominant surface.

Oh, so now HC is not enough of a distinction? Then I guess Fed is not grass GOAT either, but slow grass GOAT. How many fast grass Wimbledons does Fed have?

 

[TMF]

How many ATGs have beaten in slam finals all other ATGs of their era on their best surfaces?

Only one, and he owns your boy.

Irrelevant since winning slam isn't about beating only 1 player but have to beat against the entire field. It's no difference for Sampras either who dominated the HC by winning 7 HC slams despite Agassi owns him at the AO. Federer dominated both grass and HC, Nadal only clay.

 

[TMF]

Remind us what ATG Nadal ever defeated in a USO final which was also his opponent's "best surface." The USO surface is clearly not Djoker's favorite surface. Nadal never defeated Djoker in an AO final either, which is clearly his dominant surface.

I wish he would stop saying that he's a Federer fan. Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[California]

I think a career slam is more impressive

I think a career slam used to be very impressive. Before they homogenized the courts and surface specialist most disappeared. It also used to be rare but now in a short time period Fed, Nadal, and Djoker all achieved it... are they all incredibly supernatural or did the homogenization allow it? Up for debate.

Sampras over Nadal for now... let's judge again when Nadal finishes his career.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

Irrelevant since winning slam isn't about beating only 1 player but have to beat against the entire field. It's no difference for Sampras either who dominated the HC by winning 7 HC slams despite Agassi owns him at the AO. Federer dominated both grass and HC, Nadal only clay.

Nadal beat Fed at Wimbledon (almost twice, it took 2 tie-breaks for Fed to scrap Wimbledon 2007). And also beat Fed at AO (again, almost twice, it took a huge effort for Fed to overcome a break down on the 5th set).

When has Fed ever been close to beating Nadal at RG? LOL

 

[Rosstour]

Tough question, my heart says Pete but head says Rafa.

Fed took Sampras' game and ran with it. And we can see how much trouble Rafa has given him. I don't see how Sampras somehow would do better against Rafa if it were possible to match them up.

Case for Rafa:

1. Stronger era
2. CGS
3. Record against other ATGs
4. Mental toughness (probably the most resilient guy in this respect we have ever seen)

Case for Pete:

1. Weeks/yrs spent at #1
2. More success on HC
3. Courts were not homogenized

What I can't escape is that Pete did underachieve as someone else said. His rivalry with Agassi never really had the drama of any of the Fedalovic rivalries. He never won 3 slams in a season. And at Rafa's age he looked washed-up.

 

[TMF]

Nadal beat Fed at Wimbledon (almost twice, it took 2 tie-breaks for Fed to scrap Wimbledon 2007). And also beat Fed at AO (again, almost twice, it took a huge effort for Fed to overcome a break down on the 5th set).

When has Fed ever been close to beating Nadal at RG? LOL

Federer
7 Wimbledon
5 USO, 5 AO,

Nadal
9 FO

Still doesn't change the fact that Federer dominated on 2 surfaces to Rafa 1.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

Federer
7 Wimbledon
5 USO, 5 AO,

Nadal
9 FO

Still doesn't change the fact that Federer dominated on 2 surfaces to Rafa 1.

Fed didn't dominate the way Nadal did. Fed has been beaten on his best surface by both Nadal and Djokovic.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Tough question, my heart says Pete but head says Rafa.

Fed took Sampras' game and ran with it. And we can see how much trouble Rafa has given him. I don't see how Sampras somehow would do better against Rafa if it were possible to match them up.

Case for Rafa:

1. Stronger era
2. CGS
3. Record against other ATGs
4. Mental toughness (probably the most resilient guy in this respect we have ever seen)

Case for Pete:

1. Weeks/yrs spent at #1
2. More success on HC
3. Courts were not homogenized

What I can't escape is that Pete did underachieve as someone else said. His rivalry with Agassi never really had the drama of any of the Fedalovic rivalries. He never won 3 slams in a season. And at Rafa's age he looked washed-up.

The only thing I do not agree with in your case for Rafa is case 4. Pete is probably the only one who can match Rafa's mental toughness every step of the way. For those who think Rafa is clutch in tight moments probably have not seen how clutch Pete was. Sampras was a beast mentally, so I personally would not give that as a clear edge to Nadal. Nadal is more expressive in those moments, Pete is more like the silent killer you never see coming until it is too late. I agree with the rest.

 

[TMF]

Fed didn't dominate the way Nadal did. Fed has been beaten on his best surface by both Nadal and Djokovic.

Only if you are comparing 1-to-1 surface(grass vs. clay). However Nadal dominate on 1 surface, Federer 2.

7 Wimbledon and 5+5 HC slams is more impressive than 9 RG.

 

[falstaff78]

Tough question, my heart says Pete but head says Rafa.

Fed took Sampras' game and ran with it. And we can see how much trouble Rafa has given him. I don't see how Sampras somehow would do better against Rafa if it were possible to match them up.

Case for Rafa:

1. Stronger era
2. CGS
3. Record against other ATGs
4. Mental toughness (probably the most resilient guy in this respect we have ever seen)

Case for Pete:

1. Weeks/yrs spent at #1
2. More success on HC
3. Courts were not homogenized

What I can't escape is that Pete did underachieve as someone else said. His rivalry with Agassi never really had the drama of any of the Fedalovic rivalries. He never won 3 slams in a season. And at Rafa's age he looked washed-up.

Good analysis. Some comments:

1) The "strength of era" and "mental strength" arguments are not definitive. People can argue them both ways. If you include them in your analysis, it becomes opinion, as opposed to objective fact.

2) case for Pete should include his 5 YECs, and being unambiguously the best of his era

3) if Pete gets bonus points for performance on hard, then Rafa should get bonus points for clay. Hard is not superior to clay in my opinion.

All told, I just can't see how it isn't Pete

 

[mika1979]

I think a career slam used to be very impressive. Before they homogenized the courts and surface specialist most disappeared. It also used to be rare but now in a short time period Fed, Nadal, and Djoker all achieved it... are they all incredibly supernatural or did the homogenization allow it? Up for debate.

Sampras over Nadal for now... let's judge again when Nadal finishes his career.

I don't think that clay is very different to what it was, it is just that the others were so much faster and the other guys didn't even try back in the day. Money was much less and guys would actively enter the tournaments they had more chance in. The way the tour is structured with masters and such the best guys play the same tournaments. I have to say in pete's defence that if you are a clay specialist like Rafa it is a much bigger advantage. It is a massive advantage against most of the tour and a big enough chunk is played on it.

 

[mike danny]

Fed didn't dominate the way Nadal did. Fed has been beaten on his best surface by both Nadal and Djokovic.

An absolutely meaningless stat, just like Rafa's 8-5 on outdoor HC against Fed. Especially since only 4 of those 8 wins brought him a title, while all 5 of Fed's brought him titles.

 

[Druss]

Sampras dominant years as No1 1993-98
Main rivals during that period:
- Agassi 94/95 before going AWOL
- post prime Becker
- Martin
- Ivanisevic (grass only specialist)
- Kafelnikov
- Chang
- Pioline
- Rafter

I am certainly no Nadal fan, but seriously, can anyone believe that the Bull would not have dominated the above era?

- Agassi? Nadal would have had some good battles in 94/95 but then Agassi prioritized Brooke Shields over tennis
- post prime Becker? Nadal would have smoked him
- Martin, Kafelnikov, Pioline, Rafter? Ok let's not waste time, next
- Ivanisevic? Most likely would have troubled Nadal at SW19 and Queens only

- Clay court specialists Bruguera, Muster, Moya, Kuerten:
Nadal would have most likely lost a couple RGs to '95 Muster and 1 to Kuerten, but would have more than made that up at the AO and USO.

Nadal would have been the emperor of 1993-99, 300+ weeks at No1 and GOAT.

 

[mike danny]

Sampras dominant years as No1 1993-98
Main rivals during that period:
- Agassi 94/95 before going AWOL
- post prime Becker
- Martin
- Ivanisevic (grass only specialist)
- Kafelnikov
- Chang
- Pioline
- Rafter

I am certainly no Nadal fan, but seriously, can anyone believe that the Bull would not have dominated the above era?

- Agassi? Nadal would have had some good battles in 94/95 but then Agassi prioritized Brooke Shields over tennis
- post prime Becker? Nadal would have smoked him
- Martin, Kafelnikov, Pioline, Rafter? Ok let's not waste time, next
- Ivanisevic? Most likely would have troubled Nadal at SW19 and Queens only

- Clay court specialists Bruguera, Muster, Moya, Kuerten:
Nadal would have most likely lost a couple RGs to '95 Muster and 1 to Kuerten, but would have more than made that up at the AO and USO.

Nadal would have been the emperor of 1993-99, 300+ weeks at No1 and GOAT.

Nadal might lose a significant number of times since he is would be vulnerable on the fast courts of Wimb and USO. I think he would manage some USO titles, but at Wimb he would have a hard time reaching 5 finals and winning 2 titles.

Also your post proves that Sampras having tougher competition is just a myth.

 

[California]

Sampras dominant years as No1 1993-98
Main rivals during that period:
- Agassi 94/95 before going AWOL
- post prime Becker
- Martin
- Ivanisevic (grass only specialist)
- Kafelnikov
- Chang
- Pioline
- Rafter

I am certainly no Nadal fan, but seriously, can anyone believe that the Bull would not have dominated the above era?

- Agassi? Nadal would have had some good battles in 94/95 but then Agassi prioritized Brooke Shields over tennis
- post prime Becker? Nadal would have smoked him
- Martin, Kafelnikov, Pioline, Rafter? Ok let's not waste time, next
- Ivanisevic? Most likely would have troubled Nadal at SW19 and Queens only

- Clay court specialists Bruguera, Muster, Moya, Kuerten:
Nadal would have most likely lost a couple RGs to '95 Muster and 1 to Kuerten, but would have more than made that up at the AO and USO.

Nadal would have been the emperor of 1993-99, 300+ weeks at No1 and GOAT.

Ok, well from 93 to 98 as you stated... Nadal is not beating Pete, Ivanisevic, Becker, or Rafter at Wimbledon on fast grass, not happening. With the slickness of the courts the low bounces and the speed, I can't see it.

Better chances for Nadal at the USO but the speed and aggressive nature of those players would still be problematic. Agassi too was very tough at the USO.

On clay Muster, Guga, Moya, and Bruguera are very tough, much tougher that what he has had to deal with in his era, he isn't winning as much as he has in his own era. Those guys aren't chumps on clay and will not collapse like his opponents do now...

AO? He hasn't done that well is his own era, he is going to go back to the 90's and roll Courier, Pete, and Agassi? I think the AO is slower as well than it use to be which helps him now...

Nadal is a great player no doubt. But I think he looks much today, with the homogenized courts and lack of surface specialist as opponents like in the past.

 

[KINGROGER]

How many ATGs have beaten in slam finals all other ATGs of their era on their best surfaces?

Only one, and he owns your boy.

Nadal plays anti tennis anyway. His playing style reminds me of a video game player.

Fed didn't dominate the way Nadal did. Fed has been beaten on his best surface by both Nadal and Djokovic.

Peak Federer is unbeaten at his favourite slams apart from 05 AO to Safin. Nadal lost at his peak to Soderling at RG, Nole lost at his peak to Wawrinka at AO.

 

[hoodjem]

Yes. We know this.

Let's move on.

 

[big ted]

nadals had too many injuries & also only dominates on a surface that's played on 30% of the time. that's why his stints at no1 aren't as impressive as fed, djokovic, sampras, etc.. I think djokovic is closer to sampras than rafa is in the all time great comparison as of now

 

[Druss]

Nadal might lose a significant number of times since he is would be vulnerable on the fast courts of Wimb and USO. I think he would manage some USO titles, but at Wimb he would have a hard time reaching 5 finals and winning 2 titles.

Also your post proves that Sampras having tougher competition is just a myth.

Don't forget Nadal did win a few times at USO, Canada, Cincinnati, Dubai, Beijing OG, Wimbledon, Queens which are all fast surfaces. So I find it hard to believe he won't win as many in Sampras' era, especially 1996-99, he'd be cleaning up.

 

[Rosstour]

Good analysis. Some comments:

1) The "strength of era" and "mental strength" arguments are not definitive. People can argue them both ways. If you include them in your analysis, it becomes opinion, as opposed to objective fact.

2) case for Pete should include his 5 YECs, and being unambiguously the best of his era

3) if Pete gets bonus points for performance on hard, then Rafa should get bonus points for clay. Hard is not superior to clay in my opinion.

All told, I just can't see how it isn't Pete

Hard is not superior but it is somewhat "neutral." Players who specialize on another surface can still win on hard. That's why I included that stat.

 

[LETitBE]

Sampras dominant years as No1 1993-98
Main rivals during that period:
- Agassi 94/95 before going AWOL
- post prime Becker
- Martin
- Ivanisevic (grass only specialist)
- Kafelnikov
- Chang
- Pioline
- Rafter

I am certainly no Nadal fan, but seriously, can anyone believe that the Bull would not have dominated the above era?

- Agassi? Nadal would have had some good battles in 94/95 but then Agassi prioritized Brooke Shields over tennis
- post prime Becker? Nadal would have smoked him
- Martin, Kafelnikov, Pioline, Rafter? Ok let's not waste time, next
- Ivanisevic? Most likely would have troubled Nadal at SW19 and Queens only

- Clay court specialists Bruguera, Muster, Moya, Kuerten:
Nadal would have most likely lost a couple RGs to '95 Muster and 1 to Kuerten, but would have more than made that up at the AO and USO.

Nadal would have been the emperor of 1993-99, 300+ weeks at No1 and GOAT.

Rosol,Darcis,Kyrgios and Brown ring anybells?

 

[Sport]

Hard is not superior but it is somewhat "neutral." Players who specialize on another surface can still win on hard. That's why I included that stat.

Servers who are good on grass (like Philippousis, Kyrgios or Raonic) can also be good on hard courts. But they are not so good on clay. Hard surfaces are not completely neutral, that's not accurate.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Yes. We know this.

Let's move on.

Many of us disagree though...

 

[Druss]

Rosol,Darcis,Kyrgios and Brown ring anybells?

Oh yeah, those were epic [emoji3]

Besides the point though, we are talking about rivals and unless they have played each other at least a decent number of times is not considered a rivalry.

 

[Sport]

Federer
7 Wimbledon
5 USO, 5 AO,

Nadal
9 FO

Still doesn't change the fact that Federer dominated on 2 surfaces to Rafa 1.

Federer has won 5% of his slams on clay. Nadal doesn't have such a low percentage on any surface or Slam. Nadal is the only player in the history of the Open Era who has won at least 2 Slams on 3 different surfaces (hard, clay or grass).

 

[NatF]

Federer has won 5% of his slams on clay. Nadal doesn't have such a low percentage on any surface or Slam. Nadal is the only player in the history of the Open Era who has won at least 2 Slams on 3 different surfaces (hard, clay or grass).

Wilander also achieved this. It seems to be a hallmark of new Nadal fans to spout off the same broken and erroneous record.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

Wilander also achieved this. It seems to be a hallmark of new Nadal fans to spout off the same broken and erroneous record.

OK. Let's say Nadal is the second player to do that then. Neither Fed nor Djokovic have done that (yet, anyway, since by the end of RG, I think Djokovic unfortunately will have achieved it too).

 

[Flash O'Groove]

I think a career slam used to be very impressive. Before they homogenized the courts and surface specialist most disappeared. It also used to be rare but now in a short time period Fed, Nadal, and Djoker all achieved it... are they all incredibly supernatural or did the homogenization allow it? Up for debate.

Actually Gonzalez and Rosewall didn't win all four slams but there is little doubts that they been able to compete during their prime they would have done it. Them you have Connors, Borg and MCenroe who could have a had a good shot at it had they competed regularly in all four slams. Lendl was very close to do it. Edberg too. Even more considering he lost in 5 to young Chang. Courrier made all four finals, playing his nemesis in the two he didn't win.

Really for a long time players simply couldn't do it because they didn't play all 4. Among the players who regularly played all 4, all either won all 4 or at least all reaches the four finals exept for Becker and Sampras.

 

[NatF]

OK. Let's say Nadal is the second player to do that then. Neither Fed nor Djokovic have done that (yet, anyway, since by the end of RG, I think Djokovic unfortunately will have achieved it too).

Not an important achievement in the grand scheme of things. Sorry to tell you that mate.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

Not an important achievement in the grand scheme of things. Sorry to tell you that mate.

Beats winning a tournament with only 8 players where you can win by losing 2 matches, no?