D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
I like how you make snide comments on other posters when you're one of the worst ones here.
Sampras Djokovic similarities
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
You make me laugh Saby. I remember the other week when a Sampras fan was slagging off Federer or Hewitt and you said, no doubt due to your agitation at the time, that Pete was behind Nadal and Djokovic as well as Roger(not that I necessarily agree with this btw) but now that you've calmed down a bit it's back to the same old "blame everything wrong in the world on Novak" mantra. So funny how your views can change like the wind depending on who you're responding to.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
@Sabratha: A perfect example of what I'm talking about is post #40 which I was contemplating responding to before, chiefly the part where AngryBirds wrote how ruthless Sampras was in GS finals compared to Djokovic. Now I've heard you say quite a few times how you believe Pete precided over arguably the weakest era ever(mainly '96-'98) and how players like Pioline and Martin were, in your opinion, weak GS final opponents, but I guarantee if I had written something tonight along the lines of "perhaps Novak too would've been a bit more ruthless in some of his finals if his opponents were in the same league as Pioline and Martin" I just know for a fact you would've responded to it with something really negative about him and then come out with your usual "Weakeravic" nonsense for which you've become infamous around these parts. So basically if a Sampras fan riles you, Pete is the one that gets slagged off big time and is the King of weak eras, and if a Nole fan riles you, you say the exact same thing about him!!! 
I mean bloody hell mate, at least try and be a little bit consistent with your posts. So many double standards I'm having trouble keeping up!
I mean bloody hell mate, at least try and be a little bit consistent with your posts. So many double standards I'm having trouble keeping up!
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Doesn't change the fact that at his best Pete was a monster. I've never said he wasn't. I say the same stuff about both guys because it's annoying dealing with idiots who are fans of both guys but say the "weak era" nonsense about Federer; when it is equally true.You make me laugh Saby. I remember the other week when a Sampras fan was slagging off Federer or Hewitt and you said, no doubt due to your agitation at the time, that Pete was behind Nadal and Djokovic as well as Roger(not that I necessarily agree with this btw) but now that you've calmed down a bit it's back to the same old "blame everything wrong in the world on Novak" mantra. So funny how your views can change like the wind depending on who you're responding to.
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
It doesn't matter if Sampras had Martin in the final instead of geriatric Roger, the point is I think Sampras had an extra gear Novak doesn't have on the faster surfaces and I believe he would still be a 7-time or more Wimbledon champion in any era.@Sabratha: A perfect example of what I'm talking about is post #40 which I was contemplating responding to before, chiefly the part where AngryBirds wrote how ruthless Sampras was in GS finals compared to Djokovic. Now I've heard you say quite a few times how you believe Pete precided over arguably the weakest era ever(mainly '96-'98) and how players like Pioline and Martin were, in your opinion, weak GS final opponents, but I guarantee if I had written something tonight along the lines of "perhaps Novak too would've been a bit more ruthless in some of his finals if his opponents were in the same league as Pioline and Martin" I just know for a fact you would've responded to it with something really negative about him and then come out with your usual "Weakeravic" nonsense for which you've become infamous around these parts. So basically if a Sampras fan riles you, Pete is the one that gets slagged off big time and is the King of weak eras, and if a Nole fan riles you, you say the exact same thing about him!!!
I mean bloody hell mate, at least try and be a little bit consistent with your posts. So many double standards I'm having trouble keeping up!
I don't believe Novak would be a 6-time Australian Open champion with the likes of Agassi, or even freaking Safin around for the 2 good years he was.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
It's never a good thing to compare different eras where the surfaces, racquet technology etc were completely different so I'm not even gonna bother but one thing I will say is that calling a great champion like Federer, supposedly someone you have a lot of respect for as a player, "geriatric" isn't exactly becoming and makes me believe you're probably not the most objective person to be having this kind of debate with in the first place.
To be fair, you are also beyond any (serious) discussion. However, I like reading you as you often discuss things you don't have a clue about to, sometimes, produce humorous texts.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
You speak like Google Translate.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
When Safin and Agassi were winning big in the early 2000s, racquet technology wasn't even that far behind what we have today.
Sampras would excel with the racquet technology we have today, allowing him more oomph on his serve, forehand and even his backhand. It's the same thing with even a guy like Chang who struggled to produce power with lesser technology. He'd arguably be more successful today than he was when he played due to this fact.
Federer was old for a tennis player when Novak Djokovic beat him in those Wimbledon finals, considering his mileage and career trajectory -- before and afterward. Didn't he go down a cliff with injury shortly after 2015?
Druss
Hall of Fame
Had their primes collided, Sampras would win most of their grass and fast HC/indoor encounters, however on slow HC and clay, Djokovic would take Sampras to the cleaners. So overall their H2H would be close to on par.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Not sure what any of this has to do with the price of eggs. You do know Djokovic will still have at least 12 slams no matter what, right?
Druss
Hall of Fame
Sampras from 1996-2000 whilst still in his prime could not win more than one slam per year and dominate players in an era comprising of Martin, Kafelnikov, Rafter, Rios, Pioline and pomtiddleypom.
Djokovic from 2014+ (in an era similarly weak to the above) dominated and crushed (except perhaps grandpa Fed, but at least still had the better of - just) all those around him including Murray, Wawrinka and Nadal (albeit washed up but still Nadal is Nadal).
So what similarities are we on about?
Djokovic from 2014+ (in an era similarly weak to the above) dominated and crushed (except perhaps grandpa Fed, but at least still had the better of - just) all those around him including Murray, Wawrinka and Nadal (albeit washed up but still Nadal is Nadal).
So what similarities are we on about?
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Ordinarily Saby would agree with you on this but I'll bet you any money he doesn't this time round.
metsman
Talk Tennis Guru
nobody would be taking Sampras to the cleaners on slow hard. At his peak he was more than a match for anyone on slow hard. Peak for peak Agassi was basically even with him on slow hard.
AngryBirds
Semi-Pro
The only surface that Sampras would be taken to the cleaners is clay. He never figured out how to slide on that dirt.
uliks
Banned
Winning 4 out of 4 slam matches in that period.
Your definition of JUST is quite funny i have to admit. 
Fiero425
Legend
It's a no win situation when it comes to discussions on Roger these days! I've been saying he needs to call it a career, but being in the top 3 and making major finals was enough for him and his fans to justify his "hanging on!" Now that he's had an extended absence recovering from injury/surgery, great things are still being forecast for him for some reason I can't fathom! I say coming back will invariably taint his legacy; more upsets occurring in earlier rounds! If he does well, we start talking about a weak era or assuming he's playing as well as ever! I think everyone will see what they want!
Druss
Hall of Fame
Slow HC is Djoker's best surface, he does stuff on it that nobody else has, like for e.g. sliding and retrieving balls on the BH side...he would be Sampras' nightmare. As much as I was one of Agassi 's biggest fans, I hate to say it, but Djokovic is a step above Andre there. There is a reason why he has won 6 AOs (& possibly more). Sampras ain't winning AO or IW or Miami with Djoko around.
metsman
Talk Tennis Guru
yeah he never really made the effort to become a good clay courter, maybe it wasn't feasible for him either because clay was much slower then than it is today and his thasselemia made it tough for him to get into grind fests.
C
Chadillac
Guest
Wimbledon - Us open >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AO - french.
The similarity is that pete got to play on fast surfaces, djok gets to play on slow. The surfaces highly favor their play style.
The similarity is that pete got to play on fast surfaces, djok gets to play on slow. The surfaces highly favor their play style.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Just like Sampras has 14 and in my opinion was a better player than your boy. Stop talking in circles and address the points.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Nobody is going to take the peakest of peak Sampras' to the cleaners on HC.Ordinarily Saby would agree with you on this but I'll bet you any money he doesn't this time round.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
They wouldn't even meet on clay. Sampras would have his chances on slow HC.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
The point is that Sampras won what he did in the conditions available to him at the time just like Djokovic has won what he has in the conditions available to him. Coming out with statements like "my boy" would only have X amount of titles had he played during Pete's era is nothing but speculation on your part and can never be proved one way or the other. Is that addressed enough for you?
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Just like Djokovic would have his on fast HC.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
No kidding, we really saw that with his defeats to Federer at Cincinnati and Nadal at the US Open.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
This doesn't make me change my mind.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
I never talked about the number of titles your boy would have. I said it would be difficult to see him having 6 AO titles with the likes of Agassi, Safin and even Sampras himself on his back consecutively. Could you really see Djokovic beating all 3 (Safin won't be there 24/7 but a steady guy like Chang may be in his place from time to time) and winning the AO 6 times? You don't think Agassi would be able to defeat him?
Whereas with Sampras, no, it is not difficult to see him winning 7 Wimbledon titles; even with Federer in the mix. Federer's longevity may net him the same number of titles in the end, but Sampras would win a lot of the early titles due to his superior mental toughness, etc.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Why would I care if I change your mind or not? Shouldn't it be up to you to change my mind since my post bothered you to begin with?
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Oh just enjoy the tennis for God's sake Saby.
In fact just enjoy life - il y a tant de choses a faire! 
TripleATeam
G.O.A.T.
That's amazing! For some reason, those two slams on the right are the ones that are currently dominated by non-Federer players!
What a coincidence!And for some reason, those two on the left are the only ones Pete did really well in! Huh.
TripleATeam
G.O.A.T.
See, I'm one of Nole's bigger fans, but I started this thread. It's about seeing objective slam titles, not performance against rivals.
Firstly, 1996-2000 was 5 years. 2014-2016 was 3.
Secondly, much like Djokovic peaked at around 24-25, Sampras had peaked before then, at around 22.
By 1996, Sampras was 25. By 2014, Djokovic was 27. 1996-2000 was the back end of his career, and 1998 and beyond he was a shell of his former self. Djokovic, however, was hitting another peak in 2015 after his first in 2011.
If we relate, instead, Djokovic's 2011-2014 to Sampras' 1993-1996, then Sampras seems like he's clearly the better player, since he won 2 titles every year except 1996, but Djokovic won 3 titles, then 3 consecutive years of only 1 major.
If we cherry-pick years, either one can seem so much better than the other.
TripleATeam
G.O.A.T.
I mean, why do you need me? Someone to scape the blame onto when people start questioning what you meant by your thread? Maybe you need me to fend off the morons who can't comprehend you were comparing GS title performance, not style of play? Anyway, not interested. I'm watching tennis right now. Australian Open's on, in case you haven't heard.
donquijote
G.O.A.T.
C
Chadillac
Guest
That's amazing! For some reason, those two slams on the right are the ones that are currently dominated by non-Federer players!
And for some reason, those two on the left are the only ones Pete did really well in! Huh.
From a historical point the AO is the least valuable of the slams, in pete's era the French open was by far the weakest grand slam.
Wimbledon and the us open have always been respected, the other two , nope
SinjinCooper
Hall of Fame
Winning multiple slams in a year in Pete's era was a HUGE deal. Doing it multiple times through that era made him utterly unique and dominant relative to the rest of the field. It was an era of surface differentiation and gut strings. You almost literally couldn't develop a game that would allow you to contend on both fast and slow surfaces. If you did, you were doomed to a level that never reached Pete's level of dominance. All players in that era were essentially competing for three slams a year. Either the two hardcourt slams and the French if you were a baseliner, or the two hardcourt slams and Wimbledon if you were an attacker. Assuming you bothered with the Aussie at all, since there was no legacy stigma associated with skipping it, since nobody bothered counting total slams until Pete came along. Why would you? The different slams weren't made for the same players.
Today winning multiple slams in a season is expected out of the best player. With all the surfaces playing so similarly, and technology allowing a style that maximizes results on those similarly slow surfaces, the best guy year to year is winning multiple slams all the time. Why wouldn't he? Federer did it all the time. Nadal did it what, three times? If an ascendant number one failed to do so, it would only be a mark of weakness. Doing what everybody else in your era is doing isn't a sign of dominance. It's a sign that you're just the next guy. To prove it as a mark of dominance, you need to do it better than the other guys, not worse.
Djokovic is looking uphill at his contemporaries. Pete could barely see his from how high above them he was perched. Novak has to put quite a bit of distance between himself and Federer before he can even begin to compare himself to Pete.
TripleATeam
G.O.A.T.
A contemporary of his was able to get all 4 slams and a gold medal. Nearly no one believes he is the GOAT, but he should be if it was so hard to develop multi-slam style during that era. Agassi.
And why would you not bother with a slam? That's utterly stupid. More prize money, more prestige, more rankings points, and another chance to practice on the surface that the other tournaments would be played on during the seasonal stints. There is no reason to ever skip a slam other than to recuperate from injury.
Also, name one major rival that Djokovic does not have a winning record against. If battling the 2 of the other GOAT contenders for most of his grand slam titles is not enough to tell you that 12/9 in finals is amazing, then perhaps his 2011, 2015, and first half of 2016 will be enough to convince you that Djokovic deserves to be looked upon just as highly as Pete.
Also, just to clarify- you think Pete is better than Federer, right?
AngryBirds
Semi-Pro
Peak for peak, Sampras dominates Djokovic at Wimbledon and USO. Djokovic is not that impressive on fast surface. At USO, he lost to Murray, Wawrinka and Nadal twice. These guys are not even all time great fast court players.
JoelSandwich
Hall of Fame
Cool thread OP
Brauvenklatsch
Rookie
Djokovic:
He often blows a gasket while playing a match. He yelled at ball boys and girls, yanked a towel rudely from a ball boy's hand, shouted vulgarity to the fans, smacked a tennis ball at the fans, ripped his shirt while he got so upset, etc. In additions, he has rude parents too.
Sampras: He didn't bounce the ball 19 times before serve, didn't yell at ball boys and girls, didn't yell obscenities towards the fan, didn't rip his shirt nor screamed like a hulk to celebrate victories, etc.
Summary: Sampras doesn't like showing off. The Djokovics family like showing off and have big mouths.
He often blows a gasket while playing a match. He yelled at ball boys and girls, yanked a towel rudely from a ball boy's hand, shouted vulgarity to the fans, smacked a tennis ball at the fans, ripped his shirt while he got so upset, etc. In additions, he has rude parents too.
Sampras: He didn't bounce the ball 19 times before serve, didn't yell at ball boys and girls, didn't yell obscenities towards the fan, didn't rip his shirt nor screamed like a hulk to celebrate victories, etc.
Summary: Sampras doesn't like showing off. The Djokovics family like showing off and have big mouths.
You seem to be little bit confused. The thread is about similarities not differences; your task is to identify what is similar and not what is different.
C
Chadillac
Guest
Yep, courts actually played at different speeds and you had to make adjustments to your game. Some of the top clay court players didnt even show up at wimbledon
Brauvenklatsch
Rookie
That's just my way of saying Sampras and Djokovic are not the same. They are completely different.
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
All this means now the surfaces' conditions give everyone a chance when in the past specialists had a big advantage on their preferred surfaces
C
Chadillac
Guest
If you play a certain style, aka grown up junior.
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.
Fiero425
Legend
C
Chadillac
Guest
I never watched live, but from what i saw borg came in a lot more on grass.
Using Borg is also kind of cheating as an example
TripleATeam
G.O.A.T.
I remember a statistic that showed some sports some time ago, when sponsorships were less common and many athletes were paid monstrously less than today's athletes. Days when they couldn't afford nutritionists, private trainers, personalized dietitians, and a team of coaches to maximize their game. Nowadays, that's entirely possible, and is stretching today's athletes to their maximum potential.
That's why the 100m freestyle world record in swimming decreased from 1:05.8 in 1905 to 46.91 in 2009. That's a decrease of 28.7% on a world record. Partly due to better materials and partly due to better fitness regiments.
Arguably, the materials in tennis could easily contribute to a decrease in performance in certain conditions for certain players, but those extraneous factors balance each other out, since each player only had the regulation racquets and other equipment of their era. Since everyone would have these limitations, it would cause everyone to need to adjust. Sure, Sampras might have fared better on clay in his time if he had Federer's current racquet, but he didn't- he only achieved what he did, and any further speculation is just that- speculative. In this way, players will only continue to get better and better until it drops off- the diets can't get better, the materials are optimal, and the training is also optimal. As such, Sampras probably could not hold up against Federer on grass simply because of how sports are played now. If you don't do it this way, you don't even have a shot.
Similar threads
