Sampras Djokovic similarities

TripleATeam

Legend
I've noticed several things that are very close between Sampras and Djokovic, as the title says.

Similarities:
Sampras won his first Grand Slam in 1990- the US Open. 11 slams later, he breaks through to win his second.
Djokovic won his first Grand Slam in 2008- the Australian Open. 12 slams later, he wins his second.

Sampras won 9 slams between 1993 and 1997, winning 2 every year but 1996.
Djokovic won 9 slams between 2011 and 2015, winning 3 in 2011 and 2015, but only 1 in 2012-2014.

Sampras won 7 titles at Wimbledon, only missing 1 from 1993-2000.
Djokovic won 6 titles at the Australian Open so far, missing only 1 from 2011-2016, but 3 from 2008-2016.

Differences:
Djokovic won a French Open. Sampras did not.
Sampras has a second-favorite slam- the US Open, where he won 5 titles. Djokovic's second most favorite is Wimbledon, where he has 3 titles.
Wildcards: Djokovic has Nadal, Federer, and Murray during his time, Sampras had Agassi, Courier, and Edberg. How well these contemporaries did at certain points in their careers also affected Sampras' and Djokovic's own careers.

Beyond this point is pure conjecture- and even I don't believe it. But if were to say that Djokovic and Sampras are similar enough in their track records until this point, perhaps we can predict Djokovic's future based on Sampras' past.

If we take Sampras' we equate Djokovic's 2008 to Sampras' 1990 and equate Pete's run until 2000 with Djokovic's until 2018, we should expect to see Djokovic winning only 1 slam a year every year (in his favorite slam, no less) beyond 2015 until 2018, at which point he will mount a comeback and win 1 more slam in 2020.

However, Djokovic has won 2 slams in 2016. This could be a slight deviance from the trend, or it could be Djokovic saying that everything I've predicted is wrong.

Thoughts?
 

90's Clay

Banned
Pete isn't losing as many slam finals as Nole has. Nole really should have broke the slam record a LONG time ago if he didn't lay so many slam finals eggs.

Pete was far better on his 2nd best slam surface than Nole is on his. And really Nole's USO record is kind of pitiful when you consider Hards are his best surface.

Imagine if Pete got 2 slams to play on grass. Like back in the the day. His slam record would be nutty. Imagine if Nadal got to play 2 slams on clay.

Considering 2 slams are played on HC , Nole is underachieving. He should have 19-20 slams by now. Come on you get 2 cracks every year on your best surface? Jeesh. If it was 2 grass slams, Pete would have over 20 slams EASY
 
Last edited:

jm1980

G.O.A.T.
Pete isn't losing as many slam finals as Nole has. Nole really should have broke the slam record a LONG time ago if he didn't lay so many slam finals eggs.

Pete was far better on his 2nd best slam surface than Nole is on his. And really Nole's USO record is kind of pitiful when you consider Hards are his best surface.

Imagine if Pete got 2 slams to play on grass. Like back in the the day. His slam record would be nutty. Imagine if Nadal got to play 2 slams on clay.

Considering 2 slams are played on HC , Nole is underachieving. He should have 19-20 slams by now. Come on you get 2 cracks every year on your best surface? Jeesh. If it was 2 grass slams, Pete would have over 20 slams EASY
HC is a balanced surface that makes it harder for specialists to dominate. Also, while Novak's best surface is HC, it's also most players' best surface

And of course Djokovic is far better on his worst surface than Pete on his
 

SinjinCooper

Hall of Fame
I get that you Djokovic apologists want to pretend that their respective resumes leave them somewhere close to being in the same stratosphere of tennis greatness. But facts are facts, and Djokovic's 6 Aussie's and smattering of real slams leave him leagues behind the real ATG's in terms of impact on tennis history.

He simply doesn't even appear in the same chapter as Sampras in the tennis history books.

Sampras legitimately dominated his era. In a deeper, better, more diverse era, he developed a game and a resume that set him apart from every other player he competed against.

In a much shallower, much less talented era when the top 20 is constantly peppered with washed up 30-somethings, Djokovic has proven to be a distant 3rd best. He's a good player, but nowhere near Sampras's level. Pete dominated. Novak tried to catch up, and failed. He'd need 30 slams to have the same dominance over his contemporaries, percentage-wise, that Sampras achieved. He's just shy of that, at twelve.

Djokovic goes in the chapter with Lendl and Wilander. Not the one with Federer, Borg, and Sampras.
 
Last edited:

metsman

G.O.A.T.
Is Nadal really that dominant other than on clay? If we're looking for all-around dominance, Djokovic is second of his generation, if a man 6 years his senior is part of his generation. (Similar to Thiem-Djokovic age gap)
Is Djokovic really that dominant outside of slow hard?
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
I get that you Djokovic apologists want to pretend that their respective resumes leave them somewhere close to being in the same stratosphere of tennis greatness. But facts are facts, and Djokovic's 6 Aussie's and smattering of real slams leave him leagues behind the real ATG's in terms of impact on tennis history.

He simply doesn't even appear in the same chapter as Sampras in the tennis history books.

Sampras legitimately dominated his era. In a deeper, better, more diverse era, he developed a game and a resume that set him apart from every other player he competed against.

In a much shallower, much less talented era when the top 20 is constantly peppered with washed up 30-somethings, Djokovic has proven to be a distant 3rd best. He's a good player, but nowhere near Sampras's level. Pete dominated. Novak tried to catch up, and failed. He'd need 30 slams to have the same dominance over his contemporaries, percentage-wise, that Sampras achieved. He's just shy of that, at twelve.

Djokovic goes in the chapter with Lendl and Wilander. Not the one with Federer, Borg, and Sampras.
I've read some nonsense in my time on this forum but this post really takes the cake :oops:
 

jm1980

G.O.A.T.
I get that you Djokovic apologists want to pretend that their respective resumes leave them somewhere close to being in the same stratosphere of tennis greatness. But facts are facts, and Djokovic's 6 Aussie's and smattering of real slams leave him leagues behind the real ATG's in terms of impact on tennis history.

He simply doesn't even appear in the same chapter as Sampras in the tennis history books.

Sampras legitimately dominated his era. In a deeper, better, more diverse era, he developed a game and a resume that set him apart from every other player he competed against.

In a much shallower, much less talented era when the top 20 is constantly peppered with washed up 30-somethings, Djokovic has proven to be a distant 3rd best. He's a good player, but nowhere near Sampras's level. Pete dominated. Novak tried to catch up, and failed. He'd need 30 slams to have the same dominance over his contemporaries, percentage-wise, that Sampras achieved. He's just shy of that, at twelve.

Djokovic goes in the chapter with Lendl and Wilander. Not the one with Federer, Borg, and Sampras.
I've read some nonsense in my time on this forum but this post really takes the cake :oops:
It has everything. Convenient inclusion of Fed as being part of Djokovic's era (to make Novak "3rd best"). Yet somehow the same "shallower, much less talented era" somehow does not devalue Fed's achievements?! You can't have your cake and eat it too. Djokovic is either part of the same era as Federer and Rogie's legacy is equally tarnished by the "shallow era," or he belongs to a different era where his 223 weeks at number 1 proves he is not a "distant third best."

It also has the usual attempts at discrediting the AO as a major of equal stature in an era where all the top players are playing in it... This apparently unimportant Slam is also the one where we witnessed his idol breaking down after losing the final:



How this guy doesn't experience cognitive dissonance from believing in all this crap is beyond me

PS: Petros dominated his era?! Really? No 3 Slam seasons. Frequent early losses on clay. Ending up as #1 by razor-thin margins. He dominated Wimbledon, and to a slightly lesser extent, the US Open. And even in those two Slams, he had losses to unseeded players and lucky losers. Get your revisionist crap out of here.
 
Last edited:

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
Pete isn't losing as many slam finals as Nole has. Nole really should have broke the slam record a LONG time ago if he didn't lay so many slam finals eggs.

Pete was far better on his 2nd best slam surface than Nole is on his. And really Nole's USO record is kind of pitiful when you consider Hards are his best surface.

Imagine if Pete got 2 slams to play on grass. Like back in the the day. His slam record would be nutty. Imagine if Nadal got to play 2 slams on clay.

Considering 2 slams are played on HC , Nole is underachieving. He should have 19-20 slams by now. Come on you get 2 cracks every year on your best surface? Jeesh. If it was 2 grass slams, Pete would have over 20 slams EASY
Well when you only play Slam finals which favor you no way you ain't losing that many. If Sampras faced people Djokovic did on surfaces that he did he would never go 12-9, more like 5-16. He'd go 0-5 at the FO just for starters.
 
Last edited:

SinjinCooper

Hall of Fame
Also, it's time to stop pretending like 12 slams in the modern era (when let's face it, 17 slams is the standard) is any better than 8 in the bygone era. If Johnny Mac had had any reason to bother with the Australian, you could pencil him in for (at minimum) 4 more slams. Not that there WAS any reason to bother. And if the French had been homogenized to medium speeds the way Wimbledon, the U.S., and the Aussie have since been homogenized to slow courts, you could have counted on him for 2 or 3 of those as well. Meaning that a McEnroe would have been good for 14-15 slams.

Eight in that era was roughly the equivalent of 14 today.

Sampras's clay performance couldn't be less meaningful. Different era with different requirements. You had to choose. That was the nature of the equipment, the diversity of surfaces, and the nature of specialization -- things nobody deals with any more. You can't simply count slams. You have to compare an era's greats against the other greats in the era. And Djokovic comes up short in such a comparison. The best of the best in his era of homogenized, slow court slams, have outpaced him by 40%.

In Pete's era, he outpaced his contemporaries by 75%. He is, without question, far, far greater than Djokovic.

Novak belongs with guys like Mac because they're identical in what they did and didn't achieve. Brief runs of absolute dominance when you wonder how anyone ever could have played better, reigned in because they achieved them very briefly and only after guys who were ultimately far more dominant.

The ignorance and bafflement of the average poster here about anything that happened before 2010 is laughable.

Novak simply isn't anywhere near being on the same tier of all time greatness as Pete. That people even bring up "clay" shows how little they understand about the difference between the eras. If the surfaces even allowed the kind of all-surfaces consistency play then that they do now, Pete's closest competitor wouldn't have barely eked out half the slams.

Novak needs to take care of his own era before he can go comparing himself to the greats of others. And right now, he's just not even in the discussion for his own. End of debate.
 

jm1980

G.O.A.T.
I get that you Djokovic apologists want to pretend that their respective resumes leave them somewhere close to being in the same stratosphere of tennis greatness. But facts are facts, and Djokovic's 6 Aussie's and smattering of real slams leave him leagues behind the real ATG's in terms of impact on tennis history.

He simply doesn't even appear in the same chapter as Sampras in the tennis history books.

Sampras legitimately dominated his era. In a deeper, better, more diverse era, he developed a game and a resume that set him apart from every other player he competed against.

In a much shallower, much less talented era when the top 20 is constantly peppered with washed up 30-somethings, Djokovic has proven to be a distant 3rd best. He's a good player, but nowhere near Sampras's level. Pete dominated. Novak tried to catch up, and failed. He'd need 30 slams to have the same dominance over his contemporaries, percentage-wise, that Sampras achieved. He's just shy of that, at twelve.

Djokovic goes in the chapter with Lendl and Wilander. Not the one with Federer, Borg, and Sampras.
Also, doesn't Nadal have more "real Slams" than Sampras and Borg, and as many as Federer? Or has the French also been relegated to a non-real Slam?
 

TripleATeam

Legend
I get that you Djokovic apologists want to pretend that their respective resumes leave them somewhere close to being in the same stratosphere of tennis greatness. But facts are facts, and Djokovic's 6 Aussie's and smattering of real slams leave him leagues behind the real ATG's in terms of impact on tennis history.

He simply doesn't even appear in the same chapter as Sampras in the tennis history books.

Sampras legitimately dominated his era. In a deeper, better, more diverse era, he developed a game and a resume that set him apart from every other player he competed against.

In a much shallower, much less talented era when the top 20 is constantly peppered with washed up 30-somethings, Djokovic has proven to be a distant 3rd best. He's a good player, but nowhere near Sampras's level. Pete dominated. Novak tried to catch up, and failed. He'd need 30 slams to have the same dominance over his contemporaries, percentage-wise, that Sampras achieved. He's just shy of that, at twelve.

Djokovic goes in the chapter with Lendl and Wilander. Not the one with Federer, Borg, and Sampras.
First of all, those were just some similarities I noticed. I hadn't said best, GOAT, or even #1 in my entire post. This was purely similarities in slam records to date, which you can't deny there are.

However, you've spurred me to it.

To say Sampras is far greater than Djokovic is not a smart move- it's very hard to compare. Djokovic, for starters has the NCYGS, as as such, the career grand slam. Sampras has neither of these. Djokovic has 2 3-slam years, whereas Sampras had 0. Djokovic has Federer and Nadal, too, to keep him company. Sampras has Agassi. To say Agassi was more competition than Nadal or Federer is not just a bad move, it's completely stupid. Also, Djokovic is not that far off from Sampras' "dominant" 286 weeks at #1, since he has 223 weeks at #1, and is likely to add more.

Their slam records 12-14, respectively, are not that far from one another. Considering Sampras' 18 slam finals over his career and Djokovic's 21 slam finals, it's difficult to make the claim that Sampras was more dominant since he didn't even get that far. Djokovic made more finals than he did, showing consistency and dominance.

But again, it's too bad that Djokovic has such a good win record in the one slam that doesn't seem to matter to those that don't like Djokovic.

At this point, I'm leaving room for Sampras. I will say that he could be better than Djokovic, but we shouldn't compare because it's difficult to. However, Djokovic has a few years of play left, and he might just shatter the weeks at #1 and total grand slam count of Sampras by the time he's done.
 

TripleATeam

Legend
Is Djokovic really that dominant outside of slow hard?
I don't know, ask 2011 and 2015. And his record against the Big Four. And his weeks at #1. And his YEC wins. And the fact that's he's beat Rafael Nadal at every slam. (Which he also did to Federer.) And the fact he's won the NCYGS.
 

TripleATeam

Legend
Also, it's time to stop pretending like 12 slams in the modern era (when let's face it, 17 slams is the standard) is any better than 8 in the bygone era. If Johnny Mac had had any reason to bother with the Australian, you could pencil him in for (at minimum) 4 more slams. Not that there WAS any reason to bother. And if the French had been homogenized to medium speeds the way Wimbledon, the U.S., and the Aussie have since been homogenized to slow courts, you could have counted on him for 2 or 3 of those as well. Meaning that a McEnroe would have been good for 14-15 slams.

Eight in that era was roughly the equivalent of 14 today.

Sampras's clay performance couldn't be less meaningful. Different era with different requirements. You had to choose. That was the nature of the equipment, the diversity of surfaces, and the nature of specialization -- things nobody deals with any more. You can't simply count slams. You have to compare an era's greats against the other greats in the era. And Djokovic comes up short in such a comparison. The best of the best in his era of homogenized, slow court slams, have outpaced him by 40%.

In Pete's era, he outpaced his contemporaries by 75%. He is, without question, far, far greater than Djokovic.

Novak belongs with guys like Mac because they're identical in what they did and didn't achieve. Brief runs of absolute dominance when you wonder how anyone ever could have played better, reigned in because they achieved them very briefly and only after guys who were ultimately far more dominant.

The ignorance and bafflement of the average poster here about anything that happened before 2010 is laughable.

Novak simply isn't anywhere near being on the same tier of all time greatness as Pete. That people even bring up "clay" shows how little they understand about the difference between the eras. If the surfaces even allowed the kind of all-surfaces consistency play then that they do now, Pete's closest competitor wouldn't have barely eked out half the slams.

Novak needs to take care of his own era before he can go comparing himself to the greats of others. And right now, he's just not even in the discussion for his own. End of debate.
If 17 slams is the standard, does that mean Federer is merely mediocre?

Also, pretending like people on the forum who disagree with you and back up their claims with stats know nothing just means that you can't bring up enough information to bring about an "end of debate" as quickly as you want it, so you insult all Djokovic fans.

Also, how do you know what would have happened had you transported Connors or McEnroe to today's courts? Maybe they would be worse. And if Djokovic was so good on slow courts, why hasn't he won every slam several times over? He's shown enough dominance in the AO to be able to if they are all the same...
:eek: Maybe they aren't! Maybe the courts are still different enough to make dominance on 1 surface not equal to dominance across the game. Else Nadal (clay) would have a CYGS. Same with Federer(grass) and Djokovic(slow hard.)

Sorry. Debate's still open for those who want to bring up facts instead of conjecture.
 

jm1980

G.O.A.T.
Also, it's time to stop pretending like 12 slams in the modern era (when let's face it, 17 slams is the standard) is any better than 8 in the bygone era. If Johnny Mac had had any reason to bother with the Australian, you could pencil him in for (at minimum) 4 more slams. Not that there WAS any reason to bother. And if the French had been homogenized to medium speeds the way Wimbledon, the U.S., and the Aussie have since been homogenized to slow courts, you could have counted on him for 2 or 3 of those as well. Meaning that a McEnroe would have been good for 14-15 slams.

Eight in that era was roughly the equivalent of 14 today.

Sampras's clay performance couldn't be less meaningful. Different era with different requirements. You had to choose. That was the nature of the equipment, the diversity of surfaces, and the nature of specialization -- things nobody deals with any more. You can't simply count slams. You have to compare an era's greats against the other greats in the era. And Djokovic comes up short in such a comparison. The best of the best in his era of homogenized, slow court slams, have outpaced him by 40%.

In Pete's era, he outpaced his contemporaries by 75%. He is, without question, far, far greater than Djokovic.

Novak belongs with guys like Mac because they're identical in what they did and didn't achieve. Brief runs of absolute dominance when you wonder how anyone ever could have played better, reigned in because they achieved them very briefly and only after guys who were ultimately far more dominant.

The ignorance and bafflement of the average poster here about anything that happened before 2010 is laughable.

Novak simply isn't anywhere near being on the same tier of all time greatness as Pete. That people even bring up "clay" shows how little they understand about the difference between the eras. If the surfaces even allowed the kind of all-surfaces consistency play then that they do now, Pete's closest competitor wouldn't have barely eked out half the slams.

Novak needs to take care of his own era before he can go comparing himself to the greats of others. And right now, he's just not even in the discussion for his own. End of debate.
More unsubstantiated claims being paraded as facts.

Homogenized conditions don't necessarily mean it's easier to rack up the Slam count. In more polarized conditions you could specialise your game to suit certain conditions and dominate there, like Pete did. Some clay court specialists didn't even bother showing up at Wimbledon... In more homogenized conditions all players are on more even playing field.

8 Slams in Mac's era would be "roughly equivalent" to 14 now? How exactly would the addition of one Slam (33%) inflate the Slam count by 75%?? This is not mentioning the additional competition and additional wear and tear. Again, pure conjecture at best.

The worst argument of all is this "outpaced his contemporaries" crap. If Sampras had to contend with Federer in the early part of his career, and then had to deal with an HC equivalent of Nadal for most of his career, would he have won as much as he did? I doubt it. Maybe he wouldn't even have outpaced his contemporaries.

"End of debate"
 
Last edited:

Druss

Hall of Fame
I get that you Djokovic apologists want to pretend that their respective resumes leave them somewhere close to being in the same stratosphere of tennis greatness. But facts are facts, and Djokovic's 6 Aussie's and smattering of real slams leave him leagues behind the real ATG's in terms of impact on tennis history.

He simply doesn't even appear in the same chapter as Sampras in the tennis history books.

Sampras legitimately dominated his era. In a deeper, better, more diverse era, he developed a game and a resume that set him apart from every other player he competed against.

In a much shallower, much less talented era when the top 20 is constantly peppered with washed up 30-somethings, Djokovic has proven to be a distant 3rd best. He's a good player, but nowhere near Sampras's level. Pete dominated. Novak tried to catch up, and failed. He'd need 30 slams to have the same dominance over his contemporaries, percentage-wise, that Sampras achieved. He's just shy of that, at twelve.

Djokovic goes in the chapter with Lendl and Wilander. Not the one with Federer, Borg, and Sampras.
Here we go again!
 

Druss

Hall of Fame
Also, it's time to stop pretending like 12 slams in the modern era (when let's face it, 17 slams is the standard) is any better than 8 in the bygone era. If Johnny Mac had had any reason to bother with the Australian, you could pencil him in for (at minimum) 4 more slams. Not that there WAS any reason to bother. And if the French had been homogenized to medium speeds the way Wimbledon, the U.S., and the Aussie have since been homogenized to slow courts, you could have counted on him for 2 or 3 of those as well. Meaning that a McEnroe would have been good for 14-15 slams.

Eight in that era was roughly the equivalent of 14 today.

Sampras's clay performance couldn't be less meaningful. Different era with different requirements. You had to choose. That was the nature of the equipment, the diversity of surfaces, and the nature of specialization -- things nobody deals with any more. You can't simply count slams. You have to compare an era's greats against the other greats in the era. And Djokovic comes up short in such a comparison. The best of the best in his era of homogenized, slow court slams, have outpaced him by 40%.

In Pete's era, he outpaced his contemporaries by 75%. He is, without question, far, far greater than Djokovic.

Novak belongs with guys like Mac because they're identical in what they did and didn't achieve. Brief runs of absolute dominance when you wonder how anyone ever could have played better, reigned in because they achieved them very briefly and only after guys who were ultimately far more dominant.

The ignorance and bafflement of the average poster here about anything that happened before 2010 is laughable.

Novak simply isn't anywhere near being on the same tier of all time greatness as Pete. That people even bring up "clay" shows how little they understand about the difference between the eras. If the surfaces even allowed the kind of all-surfaces consistency play then that they do now, Pete's closest competitor wouldn't have barely eked out half the slams.

Novak needs to take care of his own era before he can go comparing himself to the greats of others. And right now, he's just not even in the discussion for his own. End of debate.
Johnny Mac won his majors in a 5 yr span (1979-84). So by you implying he would have won 14-15 majors, he'd have to be winning 3 every year for 5 years straight in a time when there was also Borg, Connors & Lendl. That's a little far-fetched don't you think?
 

Noelan

Legend
It has everything. Convenient inclusion of Fed as being part of Djokovic's era (to make Novak "3rd best"). Yet somehow the same "shallower, much less talented era" somehow does not devalue Fed's achievements?! You can't have your cake and eat it too. Djokovic is either part of the same era as Federer and Rogie's legacy is equally tarnished by the "shallow era," or he belongs to a different era where his 223 weeks at number 1 proves he is not a "distant third best."

It also has the usual attempts at discrediting the AO as a major of equal stature in an era where all the top players are playing in it... This apparently unimportant Slam is also the one where we witnessed his idol breaking down after losing the final:



How this guy doesn't experience cognitive dissonance from believing in all this crap is beyond me

PS: Petros dominated his era?! Really? No 3 Slam seasons. Frequent early losses on clay. Ending up as #1 by razor-thin margins. He dominated Wimbledon, and to a slightly lesser extent, the US Open. And even in those two Slams, he had losses to unseeded players and lucky losers. Get your revisionist crap out of here.
Guy just has no shame and is incredibly butthurt fedfanatic acting nostaliga tennis fan (btw multiple DA):D
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
Sampras is ahead right now thanks to 7 Wimbledons, 5 USO, and 6 YE#1. Djokovic needs more Wimbledons and USOs to start to challenge Fed's GOAT status.
 
Boy did Djokovic do serious damage on this guy. The hypocrisy and butthurt he is showing not just here but everywhere else can be seen miles away.
I get that you Djokovic apologists want to pretend that their respective resumes leave them somewhere close to being in the same stratosphere of tennis greatness. But facts are facts, and Djokovic's 6 Aussie's and smattering of real slams leave him leagues behind the real ATG's in terms of impact on tennis history.

He simply doesn't even appear in the same chapter as Sampras in the tennis history books.
It's amazing how this fake Slam was so good at faking the authentic Slamness that both winning and losing it was an incredibly emotional moment for your darling.



It was also good enough at faking that while you are penalizing Djokovic for winning a record number of them, you aren't removing it from Federer's or Sampras' Slam count.
Sampras legitimately dominated his era. In a deeper, better, more diverse era, he developed a game and a resume that set him apart from every other player he competed against.
Barely scrapping for some of the YE #1. Getting squashed at RG year after year. Also vulnerable to an earlier upset in other places. Never winning 3 Slams in one season. Unreal dominance.

Yeah, it was so difficult to set himself apart from the competition where the toughest one accumulated 7 Slams. Infinitely better than Djokovic "failing" by winning 12 of them.
In a much shallower, much less talented era when the top 20 is constantly peppered with washed up 30-somethings, Djokovic has proven to be a distant 3rd best. He's a good player, but nowhere near Sampras's level. Pete dominated. Novak tried to catch up, and failed. He'd need 30 slams to have the same dominance over his contemporaries, percentage-wise, that Sampras achieved. He's just shy of that, at twelve.
A less talented era that gave birth to three of (at worst) five greatest Open Era players. A much shallower era where Del Potro's 2009 results that were only enough for a #5 ranking would have been enough to challenge one of Pete's years. An era where MILOS, called by some the worst #3 ever, would have also been ranked very high in late 90s with his recent results. Sounds legit.

Just think for a second how would Sampras actually cope with the competition that Djokovic has had in the last 10 years. If the actual thinking is too much to ask then my apologies for giving you such a demanding task.
Djokovic goes in the chapter with Lendl and Wilander. Not the one with Federer, Borg, and Sampras.
The comparisons with Lendl and Wilander are one of the most idiotic ones I have ever seen. And the funny thing is you don't hold it against Federer that he won a lot in a much shallower, much less talented era where the top 20 is constantly peppered with washed up 30-somethings. And what about his dominance over his contemporaries "percentage-wise"? It's worse than Sampras' but in this case it doesn't matter because we are talking about your favorite now.

 
Last edited:
C

Charlie

Guest
I've read some nonsense in my time on this forum but this post really takes the cake :oops:
It has everything. Convenient inclusion of Fed as being part of Djokovic's era (to make Novak "3rd best"). Yet somehow the same "shallower, much less talented era" somehow does not devalue Fed's achievements?! You can't have your cake and eat it too. Djokovic is either part of the same era as Federer and Rogie's legacy is equally tarnished by the "shallow era," or he belongs to a different era where his 223 weeks at number 1 proves he is not a "distant third best."

It also has the usual attempts at discrediting the AO as a major of equal stature in an era where all the top players are playing in it... This apparently unimportant Slam is also the one where we witnessed his idol breaking down after losing the final:



How this guy doesn't experience cognitive dissonance from believing in all this crap is beyond me

PS: Petros dominated his era?! Really? No 3 Slam seasons. Frequent early losses on clay. Ending up as #1 by razor-thin margins. He dominated Wimbledon, and to a slightly lesser extent, the US Open. And even in those two Slams, he had losses to unseeded players and lucky losers. Get your revisionist crap out of here.
Boy did Djokovic do serious damage on this guy. The hypocrisy and butthurt he is showing not just here but everywhere else can be seen miles away.

It's amazing how this fake Slam was so good at faking the authentic Slamness that both winning and losing it was an incredibly emotional moment for your darling.



It was also good enough at faking that while you are penalizing Djokovic for winning a record number of them, you aren't removing it from Federer's or Sampras' Slam count.

Barely scrapping for some of the YE #1. Getting squashed at RG year after year. Also vulnerable to an earlier upset in other places. Never winning 3 Slams in one season. Unreal dominance.

Yeah, it was so difficult to set himself apart from the competition where the toughest one accumulated 7 Slams. Infinitely better than Djokovic "failing" by winning 12 of them.

A less talented era that gave birth to three of (at worst) five greatest Open Era players. A much shallower era where Del Potro's 2009 results that were only enough for a #5 ranking would have been enough to challenge one of Pete's years. An era where MILOS, called by some the worst #3 ever, would have also been ranked very high in late 90s with his recent results. Sounds legit.

Just think for a second how would Sampras actually cope with the competition that Djokovic has had in the last 10 years. If the actual thinking is too much to ask then my apologies for giving you such a demanding task.

The comparisons with Lendl and Wilander are one of the most idiotic ones I have ever seen. And the funny thing is you don't hold it against Federer that he won a lot in a much shallower, much less talented era where the top 20 is constantly peppered with washed up 30-somethings. And what about his dominance over his contemporaries "percentage-wise"? It's worse than Sampras' but in this case it doesn't matter because we are talking about your favorite now.

Brutal. :)
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
It has everything. Convenient inclusion of Fed as being part of Djokovic's era (to make Novak "3rd best"). Yet somehow the same "shallower, much less talented era" somehow does not devalue Fed's achievements?! You can't have your cake and eat it too. Djokovic is either part of the same era as Federer and Rogie's legacy is equally tarnished by the "shallow era," or he belongs to a different era where his 223 weeks at number 1 proves he is not a "distant third best."

It also has the usual attempts at discrediting the AO as a major of equal stature in an era where all the top players are playing in it... This apparently unimportant Slam is also the one where we witnessed his idol breaking down after losing the final:



How this guy doesn't experience cognitive dissonance from believing in all this crap is beyond me

PS: Petros dominated his era?! Really? No 3 Slam seasons. Frequent early losses on clay. Ending up as #1 by razor-thin margins. He dominated Wimbledon, and to a slightly lesser extent, the US Open. And even in those two Slams, he had losses to unseeded players and lucky losers. Get your revisionist crap out of here.
I'll give you this one. :)
 

90's Clay

Banned
Well when you only play Slam finals which favor you no way you ain't losing that many. If Sampras faced people Djokovic did on surfaces that he did he would never go 12-9, more like 5-16. He'd go 0-5 at the FO just for starters.



ALL conditions favor the ping pong backboard player today since everything is homogenized and played from the baseline and fast surfaces are gone and Nole is the best at it. . Like I said, No real excuse for Nole not to dominate every slam now and for the past few years really since Nadal's last real good year was 2013 and Fed's was a while back too.


Imagine if Pete got year around fast surfaces (Like these guys get year round slow, higher bouncing slow surfaces) and 2 shots a grass slam every year? Good lord.
 

AngryBirds

Semi-Pro
If AO is the fake Slam, then both Federer and Nadal have 13 GS. And since Nadal owned Federer in their matches, Nadal is the GOAT.
AO was a fake slam up unil the mid 80s and it was played on grass. Players used to skipped AO entirely due to its low status. Now it is consider a legitimate slam and should be viewed as such. Anyway AO should not be considered when comparing players from the past era. It did not hold the same value as it does now.
 

AngryBirds

Semi-Pro
I've noticed several things that are very close between Sampras and Djokovic, as the title says.

Similarities:
Sampras won his first Grand Slam in 1990- the US Open. 11 slams later, he breaks through to win his second.
Djokovic won his first Grand Slam in 2008- the Australian Open. 12 slams later, he wins his second.

Sampras won 9 slams between 1993 and 1997, winning 2 every year but 1996.
Djokovic won 9 slams between 2011 and 2015, winning 3 in 2011 and 2015, but only 1 in 2012-2014.

Sampras won 7 titles at Wimbledon, only missing 1 from 1993-2000.
Djokovic won 6 titles at the Australian Open so far, missing only 1 from 2011-2016, but 3 from 2008-2016.

Differences:
Djokovic won a French Open. Sampras did not.
Sampras has a second-favorite slam- the US Open, where he won 5 titles. Djokovic's second most favorite is Wimbledon, where he has 3 titles.
Wildcards: Djokovic has Nadal, Federer, and Murray during his time, Sampras had Agassi, Courier, and Edberg. How well these contemporaries did at certain points in their careers also affected Sampras' and Djokovic's own careers.

Beyond this point is pure conjecture- and even I don't believe it. But if were to say that Djokovic and Sampras are similar enough in their track records until this point, perhaps we can predict Djokovic's future based on Sampras' past.

If we take Sampras' we equate Djokovic's 2008 to Sampras' 1990 and equate Pete's run until 2000 with Djokovic's until 2018, we should expect to see Djokovic winning only 1 slam a year every year (in his favorite slam, no less) beyond 2015 until 2018, at which point he will mount a comeback and win 1 more slam in 2020.

However, Djokovic has won 2 slams in 2016. This could be a slight deviance from the trend, or it could be Djokovic saying that everything I've predicted is wrong.

Thoughts?
Insightful observation. I've always thought both guys have some similarities on their career progression. However, The main difference between them is Sampras was ruthless in the finals during his prime, while Djokovic lost quite a fair number of slam finals even in his prime.
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame
Boy did Djokovic do serious damage on this guy. The hypocrisy and butthurt he is showing not just here but everywhere else can be seen miles away.

It's amazing how this fake Slam was so good at faking the authentic Slamness that both winning and losing it was an incredibly emotional moment for your darling.



It was also good enough at faking that while you are penalizing Djokovic for winning a record number of them, you aren't removing it from Federer's or Sampras' Slam count.

Barely scrapping for some of the YE #1. Getting squashed at RG year after year. Also vulnerable to an earlier upset in other places. Never winning 3 Slams in one season. Unreal dominance.

Yeah, it was so difficult to set himself apart from the competition where the toughest one accumulated 7 Slams. Infinitely better than Djokovic "failing" by winning 12 of them.

A less talented era that gave birth to three of (at worst) five greatest Open Era players. A much shallower era where Del Potro's 2009 results that were only enough for a #5 ranking would have been enough to challenge one of Pete's years. An era where MILOS, called by some the worst #3 ever, would have also been ranked very high in late 90s with his recent results. Sounds legit.

Just think for a second how would Sampras actually cope with the competition that Djokovic has had in the last 10 years. If the actual thinking is too much to ask then my apologies for giving you such a demanding task.

The comparisons with Lendl and Wilander are one of the most idiotic ones I have ever seen. And the funny thing is you don't hold it against Federer that he won a lot in a much shallower, much less talented era where the top 20 is constantly peppered with washed up 30-somethings. And what about his dominance over his contemporaries "percentage-wise"? It's worse than Sampras' but in this case it doesn't matter because we are talking about your favorite now.

Great effort, but SinjinCooper is beyond any discussion. He/she is just way of the chart to grasp anything.
 

Dope Reign

Banned
This thread is one too many flew into the cuckoo's nest.

I'll never understand why people think tearing some other athlete down somehow elevates your guy.
 

BeatlesFan

Talk Tennis Guru
Similarities: Dark hair.

Differences: Sampras won 75% more grand slams than any other player in his generation and established himself as the dominant player of the entire era.
GOAT post. I love how endless people here try to debate Sampras when they apparently weren't even born when he hoisted his racket.

There are NO similarities between these two players in ANYTHING. Sampras was vastly the greater, more dominant player. He was aggressive, ruthless and a one-strike player. He' the antithesis of a defensive Gumby.

He didn't need to grind endlessly, or bounce the ball 41 times before his serve. He just bounced the ball once and that's all she wrote...
 

TripleATeam

Legend
GOAT post. I love how endless people here try to debate Sampras when they apparently weren't even born when he hoisted his racket.

There are NO similarities between these two players in ANYTHING. Sampras was vastly the greater, more dominant player. He was aggressive, ruthless and a one-strike player. He' the antithesis of a defensive Gumby.

He didn't need to grind endlessly, or bounce the ball 41 times before his serve. He just bounced the ball once and that's all she wrote...
Except in their career trajectory. I wasn't talking about style of play in the OP. They do, however, seem to be winning GS in a similar pattern.
 

Rafa the King

Hall of Fame
If AO is the fake Slam, then both Federer and Nadal have 13 GS. And since Nadal owned Federer in their matches, Nadal is the GOAT.
AO is the most entertaining slam of the year for me. Well organized and usually a suprise package. Plus it has given us Fed Safin, Rafa Dasco and Novak Wawa in the past decade or so, 3 of the best matches I have ever seen. The AO has mattered since a bit before the 1990's

I however agree that it isn't fair to compare Nole's 12, to Mac's 7 as he spent lots of times not playing AO in his peak. If we make both HC slams 1 slam we get
Rog on 13,5
Rafa on 12,5
Nole on 8
And Pete on 10,5.
Since that isn't too fair either, it's best not to compare era's in too many details and just look at who won which era.
 
Top