Sampras says Nadal could surpass Federer as slams king

[FedNad316]

NEW YORK: Rafa Nadal is "a beast" on the court who is capable of overtaking Roger Federer as the all-time grand slam king, Pete Sampras said on Thursday.

"If he's smart with his schedule and the fact that he has so many at such a young age, he could very well do it," Sampras told reporters on a conference call.

The 24-year-old Spaniard claimed his ninth grand slam crown by winning the U.S. Open earlier this month and became the seventh man to complete a career grand slam in the process.

Federer holds the record for most major titles with 16, having eclipsed the previous mark of 14 set by Sampras.

"The only question with Rafa is physically how much his body can handle the pounding with how hard he works for every point. You just watch him play, the kid is relentless," said Sampras, promoting an exhibition against his old rival Andre Agassi at Madison Square Garden in February.

"It's a huge goal, it's a lot of majors, a lot of work." When asked whether Nadal needed to pad his resume to cement his place among the sport's all-time greats, Sampras said, "Quite honestly I don't think he needs to."

"He's won all the majors. He's won the Olympics. He's dominated his main rival, in Roger," Sampras said, referring to the Spaniard's 14-7 head-to-head edge over the Swiss master.

"I don't think his goal is 16, or 17 or 18, he's just going to try to improve as a tennis player and if it happens, great.

"He could do it, it's a lot of work ahead and he works so hard in every match he plays. But he's a beast."

That does not mean Sampras is dismissing the 29-year-old Federer's chances of adding to his own total.

"He's a strong favorite for every major he plays. He had two match points against (Novak) Djokovic," Sampras noted about Federer's five-set loss to the Serbian in the U.S. Open semi-finals.

"He could very well have been in the final. He's playing fine, I don't see any big decline. Other guys are playing better. The next two or three years is a challenging time.

"But Roger is up to the task and can win more majors." Sampras would not be drawn into a debate about the best of all time.

"Everyone wants to name the one guy. The way I look at all sports, especially tennis, is that each generation has their own guy.

"In the '60s it was Laver, you had Ivan (Lendl) and John (McEnroe) in the '80s, myself and Andre in the '90s. It's hard to answer. It's just that each decade has their guy," said Sampras, later throwing the likes of Bjorn Borg and Don Budge into the mix.

"But Rafa is definitely up there. You got to definitely put him in the top three or four just on what he's been able to do and it's not over yet. He's in the middle of his career so he can do a lot more great things."

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...Federer-as-slams-king/articleshow/6616416.cms

 

[forzamilan90]

I mean Sampras is just stating the obvious, if nadal does have a long career with extended domination, he is in great position to overtake federer for the slam count; still though, like sampras says federer ain't retired yet, so we'll see what happens

 

[FedNad316]

Yes, it is stating the obvious........but it must rankle fed since not too long ago Sampras was touting him as the undisputed GOAT......It will interesting to see how Fed reacts next year at the slams.........

 

[jibers]

I agree with him, you can't have a GOAT. It's best o each era. Sampras was better than Agassi, no questions there.

 

[jackson vile]

Everyone saw how fast Sampras lost his place in the line up, now Roger loses his place even faster. I am sure the same will happen to Nadal as well. That is the point, the sport brings amazing players as time goes on and they are supposed to do one-two-three... better

 

[Trillus]

Everyone saw how fast Sampras lost his place in the line up, now Roger loses his place even faster. I am sure the same will happen to Nadal as well. That is the point, the sport brings amazing players as time goes on and they are supposed to do one-two-three... better

I dont think a player to get up amongst that group will happen in a long time. This thing with 3 such dominant players in a row is not normal at all and it wont be a trend.

 

[FedNad316]

Unfortunately I see no one of the calibre of Nadal around to overtake him........Nadal at least for now seems invincible.....and may set records hard to catch upto

 

[P_Agony]

Sampras is right, Nadal can reach great things, he can pass Roger, and he can become one of the greatest ever, but at the same time, one should never write off Federer and he's still one of the favorites in every slam (just not as before).

 

[borg number one]

Sampras is showing how insightful he can be. I think he's exactly right with his answers. He has a great take on both Nadal and Federer. He knows things about this topic/discussion that others cannot fathom. I'm not trying to start a political debate in this forum, but all these players in the discussion for the "greatest ever" remind me of that "club" which includes former U.S. Presidents. I do think Nadal will soon join this most "exclusive club" for tennis players, so to speak.

 

[Outbeyond]

Sampras is showing how insightful he can be. I think he's exactly right with his answers. He has a great take on both Nadal and Federer. He knows things about this topic/discussion that others cannot fathom. I'm not trying to start a political debate in this forum, but all these players in the discussion for the "greatest ever" remind of that "club" which includes former U.S. Presidents. I do think Nadal will soon join this "exclusive club" so to speak.

Every time I see George Bush (Jr.) I laugh out loud!!! :twisted:

But you're right...amongst the living, these are elite! And Rafa has finally earned a place alongside his peers.

 

[Retra]

Everyone saw how fast Sampras lost his place in the line up, now Roger loses his place even faster. I am sure the same will happen to Nadal as well.

When Federer was 24 (like Nadal now) there was a teenager who already was defeating him in Masters1000 and G.Slams and was number 2 in ATP list.

Where is the teenager threat to Nadal now? Tomic? Dimitrov? Harrison?

Perhaps Delpo? LOL

 

[ubermeyer]

Very possible.

 

[borg number one]

Glad you liked that Outbeyond. It is a "club" isn't it? I agree with you about Nadal. I think by the time he's done, there will be little question that he is in fact one of the greatest players ever. I thought this quote from Sampras was very telling.

When asked whether Nadal needed to pad his resume to cement his place among the sport's all-time greats, Sampras said, "Quite honestly I don't think he needs to."

"He's won all the majors. He's won the Olympics. He's dominated his main rival, in Roger," Sampras said, referring to the Spaniard's 14-7 head-to-head edge over the Swiss master.

"I don't think his goal is 16, or 17 or 18, he's just going to try to improve as a tennis player and if it happens, great.

 

[Turning Pro]

first of all he did the 1st channel slam since borg, twice over, he was the 1st player to hold 3 different majors on 3 diff surfaces, then he became the 1st man to win 3 consecutive on 3 surfaces,1st since laver and then agassi and fed with the career+golden slam. what else is in line? calendar?

 

[sureshs]

Good lesson

*******s: let this be a good lesson for you - Olympics matters and a great H2H over your rival matters. Don't ever argue about this again.

"He's won all the majors. He's won the Olympics. He's dominated his main rival, in Roger," Sampras said, referring to the Spaniard's 14-7 head-to-head edge over the Swiss master.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

I agree with him, you can't have a GOAT. It's best o each era. Sampras was better than Agassi, no questions there.

But then Andre has a better record against Roger than Pete does.

 

[jibers]

But then Andre has a better record against Roger than Pete does.

Federer and Sampras represent two different eras. who cares, Agassi won just 8 slams, career or not, that is poor compared to Nadal, Fed and Samps. Pete played Federer at the end of his career once. That means nothing. Agassi is the most overrated out of all of them. His Grandslam ins were so spread out. It;s like each time he could just change his game on each surface over a long period of time.

 

[Larrysümmers]

Funny. 2002 when Sampras played AA at the us open the people on tv said they can't see anyone breaking the record anytime soon. No one has that kind of skill. 8 years later an older player has 16 and a young gun has 9 and adding.
Not going to lie. This has been a great decade, and Sampras is correct. Nadal should pass Fed in the end

 

[Tennis_Monk]

Actually, There is a GOAT currently. His Name is Roger Federer.

 

[MrFlip]

It could very well happen. Roger getting old and being more inconsistant, Novak Chokervic, and the rest of the tour being prone to injury eg Del Pony, Tsonga. Nadal looks like hes got it made.

 

[hoodjem]

Look who stands on his own feet, assured of his own legacy, not needing to reach for the trophy.

They all come to him to learn of greatness. The sensei who mastered every shot in the game, who had no flaws, no weaknesses.

 

[jibers]

Look who stands on his own feet, assured of his own legacy, not needing to reach for the trophy.

They all come to him to learn of greatness. The sensei who mastered every shot in the game, who had no flaws, no weaknesses.

The sensei that had no GS on hardcourts, yes, teach them what he doesn't know.

 

[Chopin]

Nadal will be lucky to match Pete's record. Everyone getting way, way too carried away (as usual).

 

[TonyB]

Let's estimate just how many Nadal could have, if he stays healthy:

At least 1 Major per year until he's 28. That's 4 more, for a total of 13. Not bad at all. And 1 Major every year is pretty much guaranteed as a minimum if he stays healthy.

If he wins the French and one other Major every year until he's 28, which is very possible, he would have 8 more for a total of 17. He would quite probably capture GOAT status at that point. And 2 Majors every year is VERY possible.

Now, it's pretty unlikely that he'll win THREE Majors per year for the next 4 years, but I guess it could happen. Maybe 2 one year and 3 another year, split up. That's around 10 more over the next 4 years. That's a lot. But that would be 19 and he would be clearly the GOAT at that point.

My guess is that even if he gets to 16 and matches Roger, he'll be the GOAT anyway.

 

[Trillus]

I for one dont see Nadal winning slams at 28 years old. We will see though. I think he will have a great next year, a very good one after that, and start to fizzle off in 2013.

 

[bolo]

I would love to see a Sampras/Nadal exhibition. Come on pete!

 

[veroniquem]

first of all he did the 1st channel slam since borg, twice over, he was the 1st player to hold 3 different majors on 3 diff surfaces, then he became the 1st man to win 3 consecutive on 3 surfaces,1st since laver and then agassi and fed with the career+golden slam. what else is in line? calendar?

YEC.
I think he really needs that in his resume: the most important indoor event.
I was also thinking, if by any chance he won AO in 2011, given how much of a favorite he is at RG, there is this tiny possibility he'd do 5 slams in a row. You'd have to put 5 in a row above calendar slam, no? I don't think it's ever been done.

 

[tlm]

The yec does not mean squat!!!!!!!!!!

 

[powerangle]

YEC.
I think he really needs that in his resume: the most important indoor event.
I was also thinking, if by any chance he won AO in 2011, given how much of a favorite he is at RG, there is this tiny possibility he'd do 5 slams in a row. You'd have to put 5 in a row above calendar slam, no? I don't think it's ever been done.

Six slams in a row has been done before. Don Budge 1937 Wim - 1938 US Open.

 

[powerangle]

Let's estimate just how many Nadal could have, if he stays healthy:

At least 1 Major per year until he's 28. That's 4 more, for a total of 13. Not bad at all. And 1 Major every year is pretty much guaranteed as a minimum if he stays healthy.

If he wins the French and one other Major every year until he's 28, which is very possible, he would have 8 more for a total of 17. He would quite probably capture GOAT status at that point. And 2 Majors every year is VERY possible.

Now, it's pretty unlikely that he'll win THREE Majors per year for the next 4 years, but I guess it could happen. Maybe 2 one year and 3 another year, split up. That's around 10 more over the next 4 years. That's a lot. But that would be 19 and he would be clearly the GOAT at that point.

My guess is that even if he gets to 16 and matches Roger, he'll be the GOAT anyway.

Assuming Federer doesn't win anymore slams of course.

 

[bolo]

YEC.
I think he really needs that in his resume: the most important indoor event.
I was also thinking, if by any chance he won AO in 2011, given how much of a favorite he is at RG, there is this tiny possibility he'd do 5 slams in a row. You'd have to put 5 in a row above calendar slam, no? I don't think it's ever been done.

That's a great question, let's go bigger, if nadal wins say 7 in a row until wimbledon next year. Is that greater than the calendar year GS?!

 

[veroniquem]

Federer and Sampras represent two different eras. who cares, Agassi won just 8 slams, career or not, that is poor compared to Nadal, Fed and Samps. Pete played Federer at the end of his career once. That means nothing. Agassi is the most overrated out of all of them. His Grandslam ins were so spread out. It;s like each time he could just change his game on each surface over a long period of time.

And yet, Agassi won almost every single important title in tennis. He won more masters than Sampras (7 out of 9), more slams than Sampras (4 out of 4) + the Olympics. Agassi was not disciplined enough for consistency but he was more polyvalent and adaptable than Sampras. He could adjust well to any surface and any format. His natural talent was formidable. I will always see Sampras as more of a fast surface specialist.

 

[Fearhanded]

That's a great question, let's go bigger, if nadal wins say 7 in a row until wimbledon next year. Is that greater than the calendar year GS?!

That would be 6 straight and I would consider it far greater than any calendar year GS.

 

[bolo]

That would be 6 straight and I would consider it far greater than any calendar year GS.

oops, sorry meant 6!

 

[veroniquem]

Six slams in a row has been done before. Don Budge 1937 Wim - 1938 US Open.

Correct. Thanks for the reminder! He would still be the first to do it on 3 surfaces but that even 3 consecutive had never been done, so he already has the record...

 

[chalkflewup]

Look who stands on his own feet, assured of his own legacy, not needing to reach for the trophy.

They all come to him to learn of greatness. The sensei who mastered every shot in the game, who had no flaws, no weaknesses.

Dude -- you nailed it! The Rocket even reduced Fed to tears. He's the Larry Bird of the tennis court.

 

[veroniquem]

The yec does not mean squat!!!!!!!!!!

It doesn't mean much to me personally, but it's still the most prestigious indoor event. Both career slam holders, Federer and Agassi, won it. I think it would be a big + on Rafa's resume.

 

[powerangle]

Correct. Thanks for the reminder! He would still be the first to do it on 3 surfaces but that even 3 consecutive had never been done, so he already has the record...

Very possible Rafa can do 7 in a row too, and that would include the CYGS next year. He'd be undisputed GOAT for sure, even if he retires right after the US Open victory. AO 2011 the first big hurdle, then he's almost assured FO, and the favorite for Wimbledon at least...and then...it gets really interesting.

 

[kishnabe]

YEC.
I think he really needs that in his resume: the most important indoor event.
I was also thinking, if by any chance he won AO in 2011, given how much of a favorite he is at RG, there is this tiny possibility he'd do 5 slams in a row. You'd have to put 5 in a row above calendar slam, no? I don't think it's ever been done.

Sorry Six in a row is the record held by don budge but in ATP records it would be a record! You Know Rafa didn't win Cincy so right now he is stuck at one in a row!

 

[Trillus]

And yet, Agassi won almost every single important title in tennis. He won more masters than Sampras (7 out of 9), more slams than Sampras (4 out of 4) + the Olympics. Agassi was not disciplined enough for consistency but he was more polyvalent and adaptable than Sampras. He could adjust well to any surface and any format. His natural talent was formidable. I will always see Sampras as more of a fast surface specialist.

Agassi's problem in a way was even when playing his best he was a bit of a jack of all trades but king of none. He was an excellent clay and grass courter at his best, but there were a few better still in his own era. So as a result he won only 1 title at each of Wimbledon and the French Open. On hard courts Sampras at his best would still beat Agassi at his best. Hence only 2 U.S Opens despite consistently excellent performances there. And indoors or carpet there are again were guys better, hence only 1 YEC title. Some say rebound ace is where Agassi dominated. Well I guess his final record ends up coming out like that but he really lucked out a bit to hit a late career peak when all the guys who could beat him there- Sampras and Courier especialy, were already on their way down or retired, and when the overall field was pretty weak.

Fast court specialist or not I will never see Agassi as even close to Sampras as far as his place in history. Sampras dominated tennis. Agassi was never really close to doing so. Agassi couldnt beat Pete on any of his surfaces, and other than rebound ace at the 29+ stage of his career couldnt win that often on the ones Pete wasnt.

 

[nadal_slam_king]

I think Rafa will be winning slams at 28+, he just may be less consistent. There has to be some kind of fatigue factor, but it doesn't mean he suddenly retires. If the tendonitis treatment continues to be so incredibly effective (he's 2 for 2 in treatments this year, both restoring each knee to 100%), there is nothing to stop him from winning slams into his 30s, considering he isn't injury-prone in the traditional sense (no back injuries, and no knee surgeries). And given that science does improve from year-to-year there is no reason to think his tendonitis treatment will suddenly not work. The advantage Rafa has actually is his work ethic. A lot of players stop working hard when they get to age 30. Whereas Rafa only knows one way - keep improving.

 

[TheTruth]

I think Rafa will be winning slams at 28+, he just may be less consistent. There has to be some kind of fatigue factor, but it doesn't mean he suddenly retires. If the tendonitis treatment continues to be so incredibly effective (he's 2 for 2 in treatments this year, both restoring each knee to 100%), there is nothing to stop him from winning slams into his 30s, considering he isn't injury-prone in the traditional sense (no back injuries, and no knee surgeries). And given that science does improve from year-to-year there is no reason to think his tendonitis treatment will suddenly not work. The advantage Rafa has actually is his work ethic. A lot of players stop working hard when they get to age 30. Whereas Rafa only knows one way - keep improving.

Great points. A lot of out-of-the-box thinking. I like.

 

[veroniquem]

Agassi's problem in a way was even when playing his best he was a bit of a jack of all trades but king of none. He was an excellent clay and grass courter at his best, but there were a few better still in his own era. So as a result he won only 1 title at each of Wimbledon and the French Open. On hard courts Sampras at his best would still beat Agassi at his best. Hence only 2 U.S Opens despite consistently excellent performances there. And indoors or carpet there are again were guys better, hence only 1 YEC title. Some say rebound ace is where Agassi dominated. Well I guess his final record ends up coming out like that but he really lucked out a bit to hit a late career peak when all the guys who could beat him there- Sampras and Courier especialy, were already on their way down or retired, and when the overall field was pretty weak.

Fast court specialist or not I will never see Agassi as even close to Sampras as far as his place in history. Sampras dominated tennis. Agassi was never really close to doing so. Agassi couldnt beat Pete on any of his surfaces, and other than rebound ace at the 29+ stage of his career couldnt win that often on the ones Pete wasnt.

Sampras did not dominate Agassi on slow hard courts. Let's not forget Agassi won 4 AO and 6 Miami. He also had a much better record at RG than Sampras.
Sampras didn't dominate "tennis" he dominated fast surfaces: W, USO and YEC. That's a part of tennis, not tennis in general. Agassi was a better player than Sampras on slower courts, his serve wasn't all that good but his passings and ground game were better than Sampras's. And even on fast, he could really demolish the opposition; he was quite successful at Cincy for instance.
The only thing Agassi didn't have is a stable mental and the discipline to constantly work hard (and of course an answer to Sampras's serve on fast surfaces but who had that?) His motivation and dedication were erratic. He wasted a large part of his career because of that. Shame but look at what he has achieved anyway? As I said before, he's the player who came the closest so far to winning every big tennis event.

 

[abmk]

Sampras did not dominate Agassi on slow hard courts. Let's not forget Agassi won 4 AO and 6 Miami. He also had a much better record at RG than Sampras.
Sampras didn't dominate "tennis" he dominated fast surfaces: W, USO and YEC. That's a part of tennis, not tennis in general. Agassi was a better player than Sampras on slower courts, his serve wasn't all that good but his passings and ground game were better than Sampras's. And even on fast, he could really demolish the opposition; he was quite successful at Cincy for instance.
The only thing Agassi didn't have is a stable mental and the discipline to constantly work hard. His motivation and dedication were erratic. He wasted a large part of his career because of that. Shame but look what he has achieved anyway? As I said before, he's the player who came the closest so far to winning every big tennis event.

while it is true, agassi was more surface-versatile than sampras, as a player in terms of achievements , sampras was clearly the better one and the best of his era

 

[Trillus]

Sampras did not dominate Agassi on slow hard courts. Let's not forget Agassi won 4 AO and 6 Miami. He also had a much better record at RG than Sampras.
Sampras didn't dominate "tennis" he dominated fast surfaces: W, USO and YEC. That's a part of tennis, not tennis in general. Agassi was a better player than Sampras on slower courts, his serve wasn't all that good but his passings and ground game were better than Sampras's. And even on fast, he could really demolish the opposition; he was quite successful at Cincy for instance.
The only thing Agassi didn't have is a stable mental and the discipline to constantly work hard (and of course an answer to Sampras's serve on fast surfaces but who had that?) His motivation and dedication were erratic. He wasted a large part of his career because of that. Shame but look at what he has achieved anyway? As I said before, he's the player who came the closest so far to winning every big tennis event.

I guess we have a different definition of what defines dominance. Sampras from 1993 to 1997 won 2 slams a year 4 of the 5 years (and 2 of those years 1 of his 2 slams was the Australian Open). He was the clear #1 everyone of those 5 years, even in his 1 slam only year in 1996. To me that is dominance. Not as dominant as Federer has been or Nadal was this year, but still dominance over a long time. Agassi did not have a year with 2 slams or ending a year #1 until 1999 at age 29 (the only year he did that), so it is not like he was setting up camp to rule Australia and the French the way Sampras did at Wimbledon and the U.S Open by any stretch.

Up until 2000 when Agassi was already almost 30, Sampras had more Australian Open titles than Agassi. So it is not like Agassi was far and away better than Sampras on rebound ace as some make it out to be. In fact the difference between the 2 at Wimbledon and even the U.S open is a greater one in results and abilities both than at the Australian Open. And Sampras even with an injury that forced him to miss the next 5 weeks still nearly won their semifinal that year, he was up a mini break late in the 4th set tiebreak. Had Sampras won that he would be considered the better rebound ace player today even if Agassi still tied him in Australian titles with his victories through joke draws in 2001 and 2003 (sorry but look at who he beat those 2 years). Agassi did eventually establish some dominance on rebound ace in the twilight of his career, but it wasnt while his various best contemporaries were playing well.

Sampras and Agassi hardly ever played on clay, and Agassi was 3-2, hardly dominance over Sampras even there. Yes Agassi was clearly better than Sampras on clay, but it is not like he was the dominant player on clay the way Sampras was on grass, at the U.S Open, indoors, and on carpet. Agassi was mostly dominated by the real clay court greats of his generation like Muster, Courier, and Bruguera on the surface, the same way he was dominated by Sampras on all those other surfaces. So it really isnt that big a deal from that perspective. In fact again like rebound ace I would say the difference between Sampras and Agassi at Wimbledon and the U.S Open is much greater than the French considering Agassi while clearly better still won only 1 French and was not even one of the top 3 clay courters of his generation.

Sampras was by far the dominant player of his era since he did totally dominant overall and dominated all medium to fast courts, while others- not Agassi, dominated clay. Agassi does not come close overall since you cant even say he dominated slower surfaces. On clay he was better than Sampras but far from dominant or the best. There were many guys of that era better than both Agassi and Sampras on clay. It would be one thing if Sampras dominated all faster courts and Agassi dominated all slower courts but that is not the case. Agassi was far from dominant on clay, and he didnt show any dominance of rebound ace until his 30s.

Yes I agree Agassi was an underachiever. However even in a year like 1995 when he gave it his absolute all to tennis and Sampras had personal problems Sampras still bested him in the end with 2 slams and 3 slam finals to Agassi's 1 slam and 2 slam finals, and the year end #1 again going to Pete. I am not sure if I am understanding totally what you are saying but please dont tell me you are suggesting there is any vantage point whatsoever Agassi could be considered the better player.

 

[veroniquem]

Sampras was the dominant player THANKS TO fast surfaces. He won 2 AO, sure but Agassi won 4, so I would DEFINITELY not say Sampras dominated AO and of course Agassi made several RG finals and has 1 title there, we all know Sampras has 0.
Agassi was never really dominant for the reasons I mentioned, not because he lacked potential or talent.
Sampras's serve was unbelievable but on clay, he was really not that good (I saw him live at RG, so I should know).

 

[Trillus]

Agassi wasnt dominant since there were people better than him on every surface.

Carpet- Becker, Edberg, Sampras, maybe Ivanisevic and Krajicek
Grass- Sampras, Becker, Ivanisevic, Edberg, maybe Stich
Clay- Muster, Courier, Bruguera, Kuerten, possibly Moya

Like I said it would be one thing if Agassi was doing so great on all slow surfaces the way Sampras was on "his surfaces" as you put it, but that is far from the case. His clay court record is just better than Sampras's, but nothing remarkable by any stretch. The big dogs of clay of the Sampras-Agassi era ruled over Agassi there the same way Sampras ruled over him on all but the slow surfaces. Sampras's rebound ace record is better than Agassi's clay court record, and was even better than Agassi's rebound ace record until Agassi was in his 30s, so how can Agassi be called some slow court king on a par with Sampras on faster surfaces. And Sampras on rebound ace was probably better than Agassi on any faster surface, certainly much better than Agassi on either grass or carpet per say.

And on hard courts Sampras was by far the dominant force period throughout his prime of 93-99. He of course won 5 U.S Opens during that time while Agassi won 2 (the latter being when Sampras got hurt and had to withdraw last moment in a year he as a lock), and even 2 Australian Opens to Agassi's 1. Agassi made his hay in many ways as Sampras was on the way down and he was having his late career surge during a weak interim era. That is when he padded his stats with alot of extra Aussies and Masters titles on hard courts.

So Sampras was only dominant on half the surfaces. Agassi wasnt dominant on any surface other than maybe rebound ace in his 30s vs one of the worst fields in history. So of the two Sampras is by far the more dominant.

To put it in the simplest terms possible Agassi arguably wasnt the best player in the World at any point in time. The only time he might have been was 1999 but even then he had the asterix of Sampras's last minute U.S Open withdrawal and his 1-4 head to head vs Pete that year. And Agassi was never the best player in the World on any surface for any sustained period other than rebound ace from ages 29-32 after the Sampras era had ended and we were in an interim era. He was never considered in general the best grass courter in the World, best clay courter in the World, best carpet player in the World, probably ever even the best decoturf player in the World. Even when he won his lone Wimbledon and his lone French Open I dont think anyone considered him the best player in the World or the guy to beat on those surfaces. Sampras atleast was for many years considered the best grass court, best carpet or indoor, and best decoturf player in the World.

 

[Blinkism]

Sampras is right, Nadal can reach great things, he can pass Roger, and he can become one of the greatest ever, but at the same time, one should never write off Federer and he's still one of the favorites in every slam (just not as before).

This.

10Federbears

 

[fed_the_savior]

That's like saying, I think it's so, but maybe not. Politician double-speak.

 

[veroniquem]

Trillus, I have never said Agassi was dominant, I know he wasn't, you don't need to convince me! I said he was more versatile than Sampras. There is absolutely nothing you can write that will convince me that doing good in 3 slams is better than doing good in all 4. Nothing. And Agassi played several finals at all 4 slams, something Sampras couldn't do, sorry.