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.