Rafa > Pete?

Who is the greater player?


  • Total voters
    125

Firstservingman

Talk Tennis Guru
I have him firmly ahead of Pete now tbh.
Three more slams and eleven at a single slam is too good for me.
Obviously Sampras still has arguments (several Tour finals wins, better #1 stats).

I'm guessing there is still sharp disagreement on this. Thoughts? Opinions?
 
D

Deleted member 743561

Guest
I miss 90's Clay.

He was banned when only 1 out of the 6 majors in a row that Fedal were set to capture happened.

Yes Nadal is better.
Feel your pain. But dry thine eyes just the same. He was "voted" out of office. Furthermore, tradition dictates that evictees renew their leases under pseudonyms. Perhaps he walks among us cloaked as a variant of "Naughty Aughties"?
 

nachiket nolefam

Hall of Fame
Without a doubt.

Wins on all surfaces. Has kept playing past age of 32. And is actually no.1 at the age of 32.

Has won hundreds of more matches, more slam titles, more slam finals, more tour titles, more tour finals.

He blows Sampras on every measure possible. We can not argue anymore.
 

Fedeonic

Hall of Fame
Last US Open confirmed to me. More Grand Slams (17>14) + Career Golden Slam, more big tournaments (50>30), more overall titles (79>64), higher W/L record (82,8% > 77,4%), and now the distance between the YE#1 and weeks at N°1 is getting closer and closer. Now Nadal's only rival to GOAT is Federer, but luckily, there's still a very long way for that. ;)
 
D

Deleted member 756486

Guest
My mother is a huge Pete fan and gets mad when commentators talk about Federer and Nadal being the two greatest of all time lmao.

Yes Nadal is better than Pete, despite what my irrational mother thinks. :p
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
Rafa has 11 on clay, 6 off his favorite surface

Pete has 7 on grass, 7 on HC. He's not really better distributed. So it comes down to raw numbers and 17>14. Much as I hate clay them's the facts.
Not only is Sampras not "better distributed" (as you say). Sampras is worse distributed in Grand Slams than Nadal. You forgot to mention the Career Grand Slam.

In terms of distribution by surface: Career Grand Slam>No Career Grand Slam.

Nadal won all Grand Slams on the three surfaces (hard, clay and grass), while Sampras never won a Grand Slam on clay. So Nadal has his Grand Slam titles more evenly distributed by surface than Sampras.

Even Agassi has his GS titles more evenly distributed by surface than Sampras (even though Sampras is better since 14>8).
 

True Fanerer

G.O.A.T.
It feels better actually. I'm not obsessed with Nadal catching Federer so i'm just happy he is still able to add more to his count. But 17 is closer to 20 than 14 is to 17 percentage-wise, so Nadal is catching up to Federer in a sense, however Federer could also extend the lead again.
I haven't said this yet today and don't get used to it :p, but congratulations to you and all Nadal fans.
 

EloQuent

G.O.A.T.
It feels better actually. I'm not obsessed with Nadal catching Federer so i'm just happy he is still able to add more to his count. But 17 is closer to 20 than 14 is to 17 percentage-wise, so Nadal is catching up to Federer in a sense, however Federer could also extend the lead again.
otoh 20 is a nice round number.
 

True Fanerer

G.O.A.T.
True, but what about about 17? I still remember 17 was the number I long associated with Fed so it feels kinda weird Nadal has actually reached that. Maybe the 17 mark is all but a forgotten dream for you guys though.
I remember those days. They were tough for a Fed fan. His 2012 run seemed like a swan song that was thought would never happen after all the let downs over and over again.
 

mika1979

Professional
I have him firmly ahead of Pete now tbh.
Three more slams and eleven at a single slam is too good for me.
Obviously Sampras still has arguments (several Tour finals wins, better #1 stats).

I'm guessing there is still sharp disagreement on this. Thoughts? Opinions?
Obviously Nadal is better as Djokovic is too
 

Ray Mercer

Hall of Fame
Nadal has achieved more than Sampras but I think most people value fast court tennis more than slow court tennis. Nadal is only superior when it comes to slow higher bouncing surfaces which used to be only clay. If surfaces were reversed to 80's/90's conditions Nadal would only likely dominate at the French. His serve, return and net game are only average amongst the greats.
 
Last edited:

BeatlesFan

Bionic Poster
He blows Sampras on every measure possible.
While I agree Rafa is clearly ahead of Pete and has been for years, your remark is total inanity. He doesn't blow Sampras out in "every measure possible" and I will dismantle that in about 6 seconds:

1. Five USO's > three.
2. Seven Wimbledon's > two.
3. Six YEC's > four (or three, whatever Nadal has).
4. Four AO's > one.
 

vex

Hall of Fame
I'm guessing there is still sharp disagreement on this. ?
Wut. How?

Pete never even won one of the slams meanwhile Rafa went thru the GOAT at his best slam...and then Won it a second time for good measure. Every slam Rafa won happened in the same era as Federer and Djokovic..

Like what? What would the argument even be? Rafa is clearly the 2nd greatest tennis player of all time at the moment.

Pete made the SF of the French ONCE. He’s not even in a Rafa conversation.

The more interesting debate is Pete v Djoker
 
Last edited:
Top