Sampras vs. Djokovic by the numbers

[Nadalgaenger]

GS titles: Sampras 14 Djokovic 11 (and likely rising)
WTF: Sampras 5 Djokovic 5
Year End #1 Sampras 6 Djokovic 4 (and likely rising)
Consecutive Year End #1 Sampras 6 Djokovic 2 (and likely rising)
MS 1000 titles: Sampras 11 Djokovic 27 (highest in Open Era and rising)
Career Win Percentage: Sampras 77.44% Djokovic 82.8% (highest in Open Era)
Win Percentage at GS events: Sampras 84% Djokovic 86%
3 slam seasons: Sampras 0 Djokovic 2
Longest streak of SFs in GS: Sampras 3 Djokovic 14
Longest streak of QFs in GS: Sampras 10 Djokovic 27 (and counting)


Two questions:
1) Is Djokovic's total resume already better than Sampras' (despite the deficit in GS titles)?
2) If not, then how long before Djokovic overtakes Pete on the GOAT list?

 

[Zain786]

It is already better, once he reaches 14 it will be even greater. Djokovic will most likely surpass Sampras for weeks at number 1 also. Give it another year or two.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

I would still give Sampras a slight edge because of the GS totals and more importantly the consecutive years at #1 (pretty awesome for Sampras really).

BUT, it is becoming harder and harder to argue for Sampras given Djokovic's dominance across the board.

 

[xFedal]

I would still give Sampras a slight edge because of the GS totals and more importantly the consecutive years at #1 (pretty awesome for Sampras really).

BUT, it is becoming harder and harder to argue for Sampras given Djokovic's dominance across the board.

Djokovic has HC+WTF+CLAY Over Pete.

 

[JMR]

Why did you leave out the statistics for weeks at No. 1, both cumulative and consecutive? Surely they matter more in this kind of summing up than things like winning percentage.

 

[every7]

If Djokovic were to stop playing now?

By the numbers, Sampras is greater

When you rank those stats by importance it is very clear.....

The three most important stats are probably all unreachable by Djokovic, too, which bodes poorly for a future comparison.

GS titles: Sampras
Consecutive Year End #1: Sampras
Year End #1: Sampras
WTF: Sampras (Equal but Sampras won his over a longer stretch of time)
MS 1000 titles: Djokovic
Career Win Percentage: Djokovic
Win Percentage at GS events: Djokovic
3 slam seasons: Djokovic
Longest streak of SFs in GS: Djokovic
Longest streak of QFs in GS: Djokovic

 

[NoleFam]

As of right now, it is still Sampras. Djokovic has a ways to go to catch him. If he matches him in Slams, the YE #1 and weeks at #1 doesn't have to be greater than Sampras because there are other areas he is better in.

 

[xFedal]

If Djokovic were to stop playing now?

By the numbers, Sampras is greater

When you rank those stats by importance it is very clear.....

The three most important stats are probably all unreachable by Djokovic, too, which bodes poorly for a future comparison.

GS titles: Sampras
Consecutive Year End #1: Sampras
Year End #1: Sampras
WTF: Sampras (Equal but Sampras won his over a longer stretch of time)
MS 1000 titles: Djokovic
Career Win Percentage: Djokovic
Win Percentage at GS events: Djokovic
3 slam seasons: Djokovic
Longest streak of SFs in GS: Djokovic
Longest streak of QFs in GS: Djokovic

WTF DJokovic needs to win it this year and they both will have an equal stretch of time BUT Nole will have 6 to petes 5. By the end of next year Novak will have 6 YE#1, and Novak has stronger years at No.1 than Pete did so we can say Novaks 6YE>Petes 6YE#1. Novak probably needs 13 slams to catch Pete.

 

[timnz]

GS titles: Sampras 14 Djokovic 11 (and likely rising)
WTF: Sampras 5 Djokovic 5
Year End #1 Sampras 6 Djokovic 4 (and likely rising)
Consecutive Year End #1 Sampras 6 Djokovic 2 (and likely rising)
MS 1000 titles: Sampras 11 Djokovic 27 (highest in Open Era and rising)
Career Win Percentage: Sampras 77.44% Djokovic 82.8% (highest in Open Era)
Win Percentage at GS events: Sampras 84% Djokovic 86%
3 slam seasons: Sampras 0 Djokovic 2
Longest streak of SFs in GS: Sampras 3 Djokovic 14
Longest streak of QFs in GS: Sampras 10 Djokovic 27 (and counting)


Two questions:
1) Is Djokovic's total resume already better than Sampras' (despite the deficit in GS titles)?
2) If not, then how long before Djokovic overtakes Pete on the GOAT list?

What weight does one put on Masters 1000 wins? Djokovic is already 16 titles ahead of Sampras here.

They aren't easy wins - there have been 46 Masters 1000's since the beginning of 2011 (the year Djokovic got to be number 1). Out of those 46 - only 3 times has someone won it outside the big 4. These are seriously difficult titles to win. Now Djokovic has 16 more than Sampras. That is a very large difference. What weight do you put on that? The ATP rates a slam win as 2 X a Masters 1000. Even if you don't hold to that - say you viewed a slam as 5 X a Masters 1000 - which really is extraordinary to do so. However, that would still mean that Djokovic has more than 3 slams equivalent ahead in Masters 1000's - bridging that 14 - 11 slam gap.

Note: People may say - well, Pete didn't take the Masters 1000's seriously. But should be get credit for that? And should Djokovic not get credit for the effort he has put in winning so many? Also, to those who say that in the 1990's Masters 1000's were not compulsory and there were (prior to 1996) other events of equal weight in points and prize money to the Official Masters 1000 - I have done an analysis - and Sampras has won a maximum of 4 titles that could be viewed as Masters 1000 equivalents - bringing his total to 15. There still is a huge gap between 15 and 27.

 

[4-string]

Sampras won against real competition. Djokovic had to politely wait for Federer and Nadal to decline before he managed to win slams and be #1.

Lucky for him that Fed is older and that Nadal peaked and declined so young. Even luckier that there's a lost generation following.

 

[xFedal]

Sampras won against real competition. Djokovic had to politely wait for Federer and Nadal to decline before he managed to win slams and be #1.

Lucky for him that Fed is older and that Nadal peaked and declined so young. Even luckier that there's a lost generation following.

Who did Sampras have that was consistent and Dominant like Fedal? Pete had it easier than Federer.

 

[cockneyDjoker]

This is my fantasy dream match. The 2 best players of all time playing against each other.

 

[sportsfan1]

RG titles: Sampras: 0 Djokovic:0 (likely changing though, as early as this year).

 

[every7]

Who did Sampras have that was consistent and Dominant like Fedal? Pete had it easier than Federer.

There were amazing players like Agassi to contend with. They weren't dominant, though, by virtue of the fact that Pete was an all-conquering number 1.

And Pete conquered Andre while they were in the same stages of their career.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Sampras won against real competition. Djokovic had to politely wait for Federer and Nadal to decline before he managed to win slams and be #1.

I take it you're one of those Djokovic haters that thinks Nadal declined after 2010? Anyway this is such a terrible argument and always makes me cringe whenever I read it because even a declined Fedal are still tougher competition than what Pete had to face in his prime and I say that as someone who was a huge Sampras fan back in the day. If your majors only have merit to them by beating peak Federer and Nadal then you also have to discredit all of Laver's, Borg's and every other all time great - in fact by your criteria, Safin's the only player that deserves any praise. I know you have me on ignore so you won't read this but I wanted to make it clear just how ridiculous your reasoning is.

 

[GabeT]

Sampras won against real competition. Djokovic had to politely wait for Federer and Nadal to decline before he managed to win slams and be #1.

Lucky for him that Fed is older and that Nadal peaked and declined so young. Even luckier that there's a lost generation following.

Yeah, about that. Turns out you are wrong. Peak Nole destroyed, utterly destroyed, peak Nadal. So no.

 

[nowhereman]

Sorry, but 3 slams is still too big of a gap. If Djokovic wins RG, then I'll put him on par with Pete/Rafa. But he'll need at least 13 to be greater than them imo.

 

[timnz]

Sorry, but 3 slams is still too big of a gap. If Djokovic wins RG, then I'll put him on par with Pete/Rafa. But he'll need at least 13 to be greater than them imo.

16 Masters 1000's is also a very big gap. What is worth more - 3 slams or 16 Masters 1000's? Not an straightforward question - but the discussion is worth having.

 

[Blocker]

From a neutral objective point of view, as I'm neither American, Greek American or Serbian, I'd have to give it to Sampras on 2 counts:

1) Sampras for the career as he played in alot tougher era whereas Djok struggles against an ageing Federer notwithstanding his tight wins, and

2) Head to head I'd put my money on Sampras winning the bigger matches while Djok wins the masters matches.

I admire both but Sampras is Sampras and Djokovic is not.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

Sampras is still ahead but if Djokovic come closer in slam count I expect him to rank higher than Sampras, also thanks to him being a factor on clay which was never the case of Sampras. Sampras is the only all time great with such a meal resume on his least favored surface. Lendl never won Wimbledon but made several finals, Borg never won the USO but made several finals, Djokovic never won the french but made several finals. Sampras made one SF...

 

[Blocker]

Sampras is still ahead but if Djokovic come closer in slam count I expect him to rank higher than Sampras, also thanks to him being a factor on clay which was never the case of Sampras. Sampras is the only all time great with such a meal resume on his least favored surface. Lendl never won Wimbledon but made several finals, Borg never won the USO but made several finals, Djokovic never won the french but made several finals. Sampras made one SF...

He did however beat 4 FO champions in the 96 FO, that in itself is akin to winning 4 FO titles.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

He did however beat 4 FO champions in the 96 FO, that in itself is akin to winning 4 FO titles.

Hum no. He beat Bruguera in 5 sets. Bruguera was way past his prime, the last time he won a tournament was in 1994. He also beat Courier in 5 sets, who was well past his prime as well. He played another french open champion, the great Kafelnikov, and lost in straight sets, including a bagel.

I agree that Pete Sampras could have easily achieved a lot more than his paltry 3 clay titles if played more often in Casablanca, Kitzbühl or Wroclaw.

 

[Blocker]

Hum no. He beat Bruguera in 5 sets. Bruguera was way past his prime, the last time he won a tournament was in 1994. He also beat Courier in 5 sets, who was well past his prime as well. He played another french open champion, the great Kafelnikov, and lost in straight sets, including a bagel.

I agree that Pete Sampras could have easily achieved a lot more than his paltry 3 clay titles if played more often in Casablanca, Kitzbühl or Wroclaw.

Hum no, Courier won it twice and Brug won it twice, which means he beat 2 x 2 FO champions which means, as I said, he beat 4 FO champions. He also spanked the 'great' Kafelnikov on clay in Russia in the DC final, which for a plastic fan like you, doesn't mean much but believe me, it meant a heck of alot back then. So in effect Sampras beat 5 FO champions on clay so you know what you can do with your Wroclaw, right?

 

[JMR]

So in effect Sampras beat 5 FO champions on clay so you know what you can do with your Wroclaw, right?

Fabrice Santoro defeated eight French Open champions on clay (Gomez, Wilander, Bruguera, Noah, Chang, Muster, Kuerten, Agassi). So this makes up for the fact that Santoro never made it past the fourth round of the FO, right? His other wins are "akin" to winning the FO himself?

 

[nowhereman]

Fabrice Santoro defeated eight French Open champions on clay (Gomez, Wilander, Bruguera, Noah, Chang, Muster, Kuerten, Agassi). So this makes up for the fact that Santoro never made it past the fourth round of the FO, right? His other wins are "akin" to winning the FO himself?

He also beat 18 different world #1's throughout his career. According to Blocker logic, that would also be akin to Santoro being #1 himself.

 

[beltsman]

Sampras played in a non-homogenized era. Also a strong era. Those were different times, so they honestly can't be compared. Sampras is infinitely more talented than Novack.

Peak Sampras vs peak Novack on 90s grass...drool. 6-0 6-2 6-1

 

[Djokovic2011]

Sampras played in a non-homogenized era. Also a strong era. Those were different times, so they honestly can't be compared. Sampras is infinitely more talented than Novack.

Peak Sampras vs peak Novack on 90s grass...drool. 6-0 6-2 6-1

You do know if you want to discredit all of Djokovic's achievements due to homogenised conditions you have to do the same with Nadal as well right?

 

[Fiero425]

You do know if you want to discredit all of Djokovic's achievements due to homogenised conditions you have to do the same with Nadal as well right?

Of course not; that would eliminate the hypocrisy! lol!

 

[Service Ace]

You cannot surpass someone's greatness until you are first able to match them in the Slam/World Series/Lombardi/Larry O'Brien totals. Why do trolls and mugs continue to play this game?

 

[GabeT]

Sampras played in a non-homogenized era. Also a strong era. Those were different times, so they honestly can't be compared. Sampras is infinitely more talented than Novack.

Peak Sampras vs peak Novack on 90s grass...drool. 6-0 6-2 6-1

Ridiculous. If Nole had to play in 90s grass with 90s technology he would be a different player. Impossible to compare.

 

[powerangle]

Hum no, Courier won it twice and Brug won it twice, which means he beat 2 x 2 FO champions which means, as I said, he beat 4 FO champions. He also spanked the 'great' Kafelnikov on clay in Russia in the DC final, which for a plastic fan like you, doesn't mean much but believe me, it meant a heck of alot back then. So in effect Sampras beat 5 FO champions on clay so you know what you can do with your Wroclaw, right?

Oh, so that means since Djokovic beat Nadal (a 9 x FO champ) last year at the French, Novak is in effect a 9x FO champ, right? Oh and wait, Novak also beat Fed (a 1x FO champ) in 2012 FO, so Novak is actually a 10x FO champ, even greater than Nadal! Wow! Novak Djokovic is the greatest French Open champion ever...

 

[beltsman]

You do know if you want to discredit all of Djokovic's achievements due to homogenised conditions you have to do the same with Nadal as well right?

No one is talking about Nadal here.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Sampras played in a non-homogenized era. Also a strong era. Those were different times, so they honestly can't be compared. Sampras is infinitely more talented than Novack.

Peak Sampras vs peak Novack on 90s grass...drool. 6-0 6-2 6-1

Riiight.

Sampras would likely have an edge on fast grass but he never played anyone as good as Novak. Agassi returned as well arguably bit didn't have the overall agility, movement, and precision.

Djokovic would have little difficulty holding serve against Sampras on fast grass. Most of the sets would be decided in tiebreakers probably.

Plus, if Baby Fed and Rafter can take sets off Sampras on grass, then why wouldn't prime Nole?

 

[beltsman]

Riiight.

Sampras would likely have an edge on fast grass but he never played anyone as good as Novak. Agassi returned as well arguably bit didn't have the overall agility, movement, and precision.

Djokovic would have little difficulty holding serve against Sampras on fast grass. Most of the sets would be decided in tiebreakers probably.

Plus, if Baby Fed and Rafter can take sets off Sampras on grass, then why wouldn't prime Nole?

lol. Novack would be clueless on fast grass. Totally different game. His baseline grinding would be of no use.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

lol. Novack would be clueless on fast grass. Totally different game. His baseline grinding would be of no use.

If Borg won 5 titles on fast grass with stellar movement, defense, and "baseline grinding" then I think Nadal and Djokovic would be ok.

 

[timnz]

If Borg won 5 titles on fast grass with stellar movement, defense, and "baseline grinding" then I think Nadal and Djokovic would be ok.

There is a big difference. Borg was also one of the best fast court players of the day - and proved it. His H2H winning record on indoor carpet over McEnroe who was the best indoor player (equal with Lendl) in the 1980's establishes that.

Borg - even as a teenager was excelling on fast indoor carpet evidenced by his making the WCT finals last match in 1975 as an 18 year old.

There is just no evidence on how Djokovic would do on a fast surface (he hasn't played on one as far as I can tell). The only evidence we have is on medium fast surfaces like Cincinatti where he has done quite well (4 finals) but it could be significant that this is his worst Masters 1000 in terms of results.

Note: Wimbledon is medium, WTF is medium

 

[Blocker]

Oh, so that means since Djokovic beat Nadal (a 9 x FO champ) last year at the French, Novak is in effect a 9x FO champ, right? Oh and wait, Novak also beat Fed (a 1x FO champ) in 2012 FO, so Novak is actually a 10x FO champ, even greater than Nadal! Wow! Novak Djokovic is the greatest French Open champion ever...

And even so, he dominates the FO and of course the AO, Sampras dominates Wimbledon and the USO.

So in conclusion:

Sampras dominates the first and second most important tournaments in the world.

Djokovic dominates the third and fourth most important tournaments in the world.

Take your pick.

Sampras is not stupid, he changed from a two hander BH in his juniors to ensure his game was conducive to winning the two most important events in tennis. And guess what, mission accomplished. If the powers that be change the goal posts after his retirement so that every tom dick and pusher can win a career slam with the same game style, then so be it, but that should not be a negative reflection on Sampras if the beneficiaries of the change, ie Djok and Nadal, take advantage of it.

Sampras won in conditions where different tournaments suited different styles. Doesn't matter how good you were, if you played a surface against a guy whose game was conducive to that surface, then tough titty. But you being a plastic fan of the plastic model the tour has become, would have no freaking idea about what it used to be like, would you? The Djoks and Nadals of this world dominate where the one style of game will get you all the slams if you're good enough. And those two were good enough, but they're no Sampras. As someone else said above, Sampras would bagel Djokovic on Wimbledon Centre Court.

Djok may eventually overtake Sampras in total slams, but I doubt he'll ever be the Wimbledon enforcer that Sampras was.

That is all.

 

[6august]

Bla bla bla... guess what? Djokovic 's king of AO while Sampras is king of no Slam at all.

Are you trying to say AO didn't matter in Sampras' time?

Then LMAO/

Sampras would bagel Djokovic at Wimby? LMAO. No one can Djokovic him there, and Sampras did not bagel any ATG there.

15 Slam and Djokovic > Sampras. That's it.

 

[Russeljones]

GS titles: Sampras 14 Djokovic 11 (and likely rising)
WTF: Sampras 5 Djokovic 5
Year End #1 Sampras 6 Djokovic 4 (and likely rising)
Consecutive Year End #1 Sampras 6 Djokovic 2 (and likely rising)
MS 1000 titles: Sampras 11 Djokovic 27 (highest in Open Era and rising)
Career Win Percentage: Sampras 77.44% Djokovic 82.8% (highest in Open Era)
Win Percentage at GS events: Sampras 84% Djokovic 86%
3 slam seasons: Sampras 0 Djokovic 2
Longest streak of SFs in GS: Sampras 3 Djokovic 14
Longest streak of QFs in GS: Sampras 10 Djokovic 27 (and counting)


Two questions:
1) Is Djokovic's total resume already better than Sampras' (despite the deficit in GS titles)?
2) If not, then how long before Djokovic overtakes Pete on the GOAT list?

Djokovic is miles behind, are you blind?

 

[Chanwan]

Djokovic is miles behind, are you blind?

Djokovic is miles ahead already, how can't you see that?


recency bias

 

[xFedal]

Djokovic is miles ahead already, how can't you see that?


recency bias

Djokovic has very good chance of reaching 6YE by the end of next year.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Djokovic is miles behind, are you blind?

He's behind but not by that much Russel and deep down I suspect you know it. Your butthurt will be amusing to see if he does go ahead of Sampras though.

 

[Russeljones]

He's behind but not by that much Russel and deep down I suspect you know it. Your butthurt will be amusing to see if he does go ahead of Sampras though.

Is it butthurt that makes 286 weeks at world #1 almost a full 2 years more than 191, or is it simple maths?

 

[Djokovic2011]

Is it butthurt that makes 286 weeks at world #1 almost a full 2 years more than 191, or is it simple maths?

That gap is getting smaller by the day. Novak won't be "miles behind" Sampras in that department by the end of his career. You know this already of course.

 

[xFedal]

Is it butthurt that makes 286 weeks at world #1 almost a full 2 years more than 191, or is it simple maths?

Isn't Novak guaranteed 15 more weeks at No.1?

 

[Russeljones]

That gap is getting smaller by the day. Novak won't be "miles behind" Sampras in that department by the end of his career. You know this already of course.

Do I? I suppose you also have a similar rebuttal for the consecutive YE#1s?

 

[Djokovic2011]

Do I? I suppose you also have a similar rebuttal for the consecutive YE#1s?

You betcha.

 

[Chanwan]

Djokovic has very good chance of reaching 6YE by the end of next year.

What has the end of next year, i.e. 20 months time, got to do with here and now?

 

[heninfan99]

Nole's career win % will likely fall has he gets older but comparing eras is a waste of time

GS titles: Sampras 14 Djokovic 11 (and likely rising)
WTF: Sampras 5 Djokovic 5
Year End #1 Sampras 6 Djokovic 4 (and likely rising)
Consecutive Year End #1 Sampras 6 Djokovic 2 (and likely rising)
MS 1000 titles: Sampras 11 Djokovic 27 (highest in Open Era and rising)
Career Win Percentage: Sampras 77.44% Djokovic 82.8% (highest in Open Era)
Win Percentage at GS events: Sampras 84% Djokovic 86%
3 slam seasons: Sampras 0 Djokovic 2
Longest streak of SFs in GS: Sampras 3 Djokovic 14
Longest streak of QFs in GS: Sampras 10 Djokovic 27 (and counting)


Two questions:
1) Is Djokovic's total resume already better than Sampras' (despite the deficit in GS titles)?
2) If not, then how long before Djokovic overtakes Pete on the GOAT list?

 

[xFedal]

What has the end of next year, i.e. 20 months time, got to do with here and now?

Tying Pete amazing record of 6YE#1. Huge achievement.