Sampras Djokovic similarities

metsman

G.O.A.T.
I disagree with you. I remember when Borg was winning RG and W playing the same game on two different surfaces. It is up to the quality of players. Top players from 2005 onwards are just better than top players 20-30 years ago.
You don't even know Borg's first name much less what kind of game he was playing.
 

timnz

Legend
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

I can't agree. Making a slam final is an achievement in itself. Sampras not making a final isn't a superior performance to Djokovic being runner-up. It is always better making a slam final than losing before the final.

Slam wins - Sampras 2 ahead

Outside their slam wins in Grand Slam tournament play - their next best 9 are:

Djokovic 4 runner-ups plus 5 runner-ups
Sampras 4 runner-ups plus 5 semi-finals.

Its clear that losing 5 semi-finals (Sampras) is worse achievement than winning 5 semi-finals (Djokovic)?

You can't assume that if Sampras won those 5 semi-finals that he would have gone on to win the championships. That is giving him too much grace. It is like the whole Wawrinka myth of him being near unbeatable in slam finals. The problem is, we don't know, if he made more finals then he might lose more. I think Murray's slam record is miles superior to Wawrinkas. It has to be considered that way, as 8 runner-ups is superior to 4 semi's and 4 quarters. We must stop giving credit to players who don't reach finals, assuming they would win the final if they got there. There is no evidence of that.
 
Last edited:

Fiero425

Legend
I can't agree. Making a slam final is an achievement in itself. Sampras not making a final isn't a superior performance to Djokovic being runner-up.

Both Nadal & Nole have 2 USO's and issues w/ the summer; Nadal more so with both summer and fall failures! Nole @ least usually gets refreshed & has a winning record going into the YEC! Not many have that kind of staying power and consistency! It finally caught up w/ him last season though; almost a zombie after the FO & completion of his "Nole-Slam!" :rolleyes: :p ;)
 

timnz

Legend
Both Nadal & Nole have 2 USO's and issues w/ the summer; Nadal more so with both summer and fall failures! Nole @ least usually gets refreshed & has a winning record going into the YEC! Not many have that kind of staying power and consistency! It finally caught up w/ him last season though; almost a zombie after the FO & completion of his "Nole-Slam!" :rolleyes: :p ;)
You may be right about players and time of year. But I have always thought that Nadal's problem with the time of year was the increasing speed of the courts. They generally go from Slow to Slow-Medium for the first half of the year to medium (and a very few medium-fast) in the second half of the year. Nadal can play well on these faster courts - but he has to be in peak form to do it eg 2008, 2010 and 2013. He is still able to win clay court tournaments and slow hard when he isn't near his peak.

Djokovic is more complex. He seems to do really well in Autumn. It is just the summer swing. Cincinatti is about court speed. He game is nearly good enough to win there - but he isn't a fast court player (though better on fast courts than Nadal). Note: WTF is a medium-slow court.
 

AngryBirds

Semi-Pro
I disagree with you. I remember when Borg was winning RG and W playing the same game on two different surfaces. It is up to the quality of players. Top players from 2005 onwards are just better than top players 20-30 years ago.
Not the same. Borg came in a lot on grass. He played a much more defensive game on clay. Borg should be used as an example of how to adjust playing style to two completely different surfaces.
 

mika1979

Professional
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.
So was the french for most and wimbledon for the clay courters
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame
Not the same. Borg came in a lot on grass. He played a much more defensive game on clay. Borg should be used as an example of how to adjust playing style to two completely different surfaces.

Borg played W totally from the baseline; I watched him zillion times. He adjusted his game to different surfaces in a degreer Nadal/Djokovic/Murray/Federer adjust their games to different surfaces. If you are born after 1973 don't bother responding to me.
 

AngryBirds

Semi-Pro
Borg played W totally from the baseline; I watched him zillion times. He adjusted his game to different surfaces in a degreer Nadal/Djokovic/Murray/Federer adjust their games to different surfaces. If you are born after 1973 don't bother responding to me.
You must be watching the wrong Borg if you see him play totally from the baseline at Wimbledon. Federer is the only player you mentioned who adjusted marginally to different surfaces.
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame
You must be watching the wrong Borg if you see him play totally from the baseline at Wimbledon. Federer is the only player you mentioned who adjusted marginally to different surfaces.

I have seen on your profile that you were born on 1978. Telling me how Borg played is like a kid born in 2015 telling you how Roddick played.
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame
Age has nothing to do with my knowledge of Borg, but given how little you know about Borg, I am probably older than you. ;)

I told you not to respond if you were born after 1973 (and I was generous there). I have nothing to discuss with you as you were not there; you just didn't see it. It is like me discussing Fred Perry with a guy born in 1915.
 

shankster

Professional
So Federer is a part of Djokovic's generation for the purposes of calling Djokovic "the 3rd best player of his generation" yet his slams have come in a strong era whilst Djokovic's in a weak? How does that work again?
And if % of domination in comparison to peers is the yardstick, wouldn't Sampras greater be better than Federer too considering Federer has 2 other peers with double digit slams (and against both of whom he has a losing H2H) whereas Sampras nearly won twice as much as the next best player of his era and also dominated him in the H2H? Or are Nadal and Djokovic not considered Federer's peers for this purpose and we're only gonna consider the likes of Hewitt, Roddick et al?
 

metsman

G.O.A.T.
I told you not to respond if you were born after 1973 (and I was generous there). I have nothing to discuss with you as you were not there; you just didn't see it. It is like me discussing Fred Perry with a guy born in 1915.
I was born in 1920. You are full of crap when it comes to Borg. Like I said, you don't even know his first name.
 

AngryBirds

Semi-Pro
I told you not to respond if you were born after 1973 (and I was generous there). I have nothing to discuss with you as you were not there; you just didn't see it. It is like me discussing Fred Perry with a guy born in 1915.
I know kids like you who wants to be old. Youth is the greatest gift that should not be wasted. You'll get old one day and you will realize a real old man does not see the world the way you do now.
 

6august

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.

australian-open-2006-105551.jpg
000cf1bdd2450af0884f02.jpg


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.

Also Djoker has never beaten best version of Nadal because Bull belongs to Fed's generation despite the 1-age gap. Bull's peak ended at his 24 yo. :rolleyes:
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame
I know kids like you who wants to be old. Youth is the greatest gift that should not be wasted. You'll get old one day and you will realize a real old man does not see the world the way you do now.

Are you ready to put the money where your mouth is. Lets have a £20K bet that I am over 50.
 

SinjinCooper

Hall of Fame
I can't agree. Making a slam final is an achievement in itself. Sampras not making a final isn't a superior performance to Djokovic being runner-up. It is always better making a slam final than losing before the final.

Slam wins - Sampras 2 ahead

Outside their slam wins in Grand Slam tournament play - their next best 9 are:

Djokovic 4 runner-ups plus 5 runner-ups
Sampras 4 runner-ups plus 5 semi-finals.

Its clear that losing 5 semi-finals (Sampras) is worse achievement than winning 5 semi-finals (Djokovic)?

You can't assume that if Sampras won those 5 semi-finals that he would have gone on to win the championships. That is giving him too much grace. It is like the whole Wawrinka myth of him being near unbeatable in slam finals. The problem is, we don't know, if he made more finals then he might lose more. I think Murray's slam record is miles superior to Wawrinkas. It has to be considered that way, as 8 runner-ups is superior to 4 semi's and 4 quarters. We must stop giving credit to players who don't reach finals, assuming they would win the final if they got there. There is no evidence of that.
There's also no evidence Djokovic would get out of the first round at a Slam played on a fast surface completely antithetical to his game. While there is more than adequate evidence Pete could reach a semi at a slow one that suited his game every bit as poorly.

Yet another unnecessary advantage: Sampras.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
You must be watching the wrong Borg if you see him play totally from the baseline at Wimbledon. Federer is the only player you mentioned who adjusted marginally to different surfaces.
Agassi was alright at it too but he has always had an OK net-game anyways.
 

vex

Legend
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.
You could say this about Sampras and literally any player tho...
 
Any similarities in regards to their overheads ??
O no you ditten!

Johnny Mac won his majors in a 5 yr span (1979-84). So by you implying he would have won 14-15 majors......?
Ah, the Tatum effect. Can you imagine how few slams Nolé, rofa, and roger would have if they had married a succubus like tatum o'neal?!

The fact is Sampras succeeded naturally and *Cvac didn't.
O no u DITTEN!!!

Pete and Nolé.
Both come from Orthodox Christian backgrounds.
Thick eyebrows, similarly made for the sun.
Both tan well.
Both like a good wristband or two.
 
D

Deleted member 777746

Guest
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
So true, Pete would clearly have in the 20 range if there were 2 grass slams a year, HELL he coulda had that in his own conditions if not for untimely injuries/tragedies.
Having said that, Nole is by far the closest thing to Pete mentally we've seen since, and another layer to the irony of similarities is that Pete came up with his best stuff in pressure moments in general, but especially on his serve, while Nole does it especially on his returns.
 
D

Deleted member 777746

Guest
Difference: Djokovic will win 18+ GS by the end of his career.
Pete would have had that if he hadn't played against a doper in a year he was certainly going to win the Open, suffered numerous injuries that prevented him from competing, had a stamina disorder etc. so basically if he'd had the modern nutrition/healthcare the big 3 enjoy he'd easily be in the 18-20 range. Give him 2 slams a year on grass, and well the record might well have been at 24 slams rather than 14.
 

CYGS

Legend
Pete would have had that if he hadn't played against a doper in a year he was certainly going to win the Open, suffered numerous injuries that prevented him from competing, had a stamina disorder etc. so basically if he'd had the modern nutrition/healthcare the big 3 enjoy he'd easily be in the 18-20 range. Give him 2 slams a year on grass, and well the record might well have been at 24 slams rather than 14.
woulda shoulda coulda = not real
Not interested.
 

NoleIsBoat

Hall of Fame
Both owned main rivals at their top 2 slams:

Sampras - Agassi Wimbledon h2h -> 2 - 0
Sampras - Agassi USO h2h -> 4 - 0

Djokovic - Fedal Wimbledon h2h -> 5 - 2
Djokovic - Fedal Australian Open h2h -> 6 - 1

Sampras king of 90s tennis, Djokovic king of 21st century tennis :whistle:
 
Top