This is my Hardcourt Greatest List from 1 to 4.
- Thread starter REKX
- Start date
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
Stopped reading right there. Anyone who puts Nadal above Sampras on HC obviously started watching tennis last Friday.
And you might want to examine Mac, Connors, Agassi and Lendl on HC as well. Please Google those names to acquaint yourself with their HC achievements.
Last edited:
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
Delete.
Last edited:
cc0509
Talk Tennis Guru
Nadal, a better hc player than Sampras? That's ridiculous, sorry. Nadal shouldn't be on that list. It should be, Federer, Sampras, Djokovic, Agassi, Connors, Lendl, McEnroe.
Druss
Hall of Fame
I would even rank Connors above Nadal on HC.
merlinpinpin
Hall of Fame
Great list, imho. There is a case to be made for Lendl at #3 (because of AO being played on grass for half of his career) and Connors at #5 (ditto the USO), but this is pretty solid as is. Becker and Edberg were also better HC players than Nadal imho, too, but the competition was more top-heavy at the time and their results in slams don't bear this out, so that's fine having them after him.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
These two are pretty much as accurate as its going to get. Will put Nadal over Connors though.
Federer, Djokovic, Sampras though top three in that order. Keep in mind that Federer and Djokovic have been battling each other and going through each other to win HC slams, and still have more than anyone else, which is why I rank them higher. Sampras did not have a Federer or Djokovic to deal with, he had a good Agassi, but both Federer and Djokovic are a step higher due to their crazy consistency, while Agassi went AWOL at the peak of his rivalry with Sampras after USO 95.
Last edited by a moderator:
metsman
G.O.A.T.
Federer and Djokovic had to beat prime versions of the other to win HC slams once each if you are being generous. They've very rarely battled prime for prime and peak for peak (for the latter never) which isn't surprising obviously given that Djokovic peaked 7 years after Fed did and is 6 years younger. So the degree of difficulty of having to go through each other is overstated.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
The doesn't change the fact that these two have been a major road block for each other at HC events, more than any other combination. 10 meetings says it all. You can be as subjective as you want about prime this and peak that, I am going to go with how they were playing at that particular tournament. These two have had dog fights and been a major thorn in each other's side at HC slams. Take either of these two out, and the other picks up a couple more slams imo. The fact they managed to win 10 and 8 slams respectively, while playing each other says enough for me.
Last edited by a moderator:
Shank Volley
Hall of Fame
NatF
Bionic Poster
I would add that Nadal has only won 40% of his meetings against top 5 players - 25-37. Even as a #1 ranked player he's 8-10 against top 5 players on HC.
Nadal is a streaky player on HC, he can play at a high level but his accomplishments are no where near top 4.
BHud
Hall of Fame
Says it all right here...
mike danny
Bionic Poster
While putting him above Sampras on HC is as fair as it gets.
tennis_crazy
Semi-Pro
Let Bull defend a hardcourt title first to be considered an ATG HC player. He will have 2 chances in 2018......
Shank Volley
Hall of Fame
But didn't you read his post? He's a fan of Nadal AND Federer, so he's totally unbiased. It's like me saying "I'm a fan of Nadal and Sampras, but Sampras would have crushed Nadal on clay." Totally fair statement.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
I am both a Federer and Nadal fan. Federer fan first.
I know diddly squat about tennis history and I am
perfectly capable of spewing total nonsense every time I write .
I know diddly squat about tennis history and I am
perfectly capable of spewing total nonsense every time I write .
BlueClayGOAT
Semi-Pro
The greatest takeaway from this thread is 'Peter Sampras'.
Chanwan
G.O.A.T.
it's not, but I haven't got the patience for a guy who only posts dumb posts. If they are funny, it's great. If they are not, it's just tiresome. Simple as thatTake it easy man. It's not that serious. LOL
vive le beau jeu !
Talk Tennis Guru
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Basically. Level wise he's definitely there, no questions. But I can't hand out invisible trophies. Guys like Agassi have to be above him.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Depends how you look at level of play. Considering modern training and equipment Nadal probably does have the third highest peak on HC, but going by that sort of logic a guy like Borg from the 70's with his play aided (or hindered) by a wooden racquet wouldn't make it past the qualifying of the French Open. The more interesting question is would Nadal be a better HC player than say Agassi or Lendl or Mac etc...competing with their equipment or they competing with his. On the basis of how Nadal has performed against his peers across his career I'm inclined to say he's not really in their ballpark. A lot of those guys have had very dominant runs and streaks on HC (like Nadal has) - and they've backed it up with day in and day out consistency that Nadal hasn't.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Yea Djokovic 1st met peak Federer in a USO final 4 years before his peak, and Federer met peak Djokovic in a USO final some 5 years after he exited his prime. The difference in age may have prevented them from meeting each other peak to peak but the fact that they met 6 times at the USO and are 3-3 shows how hard they had to battle each other to win their titles. For comparison, Sampras and Agassi only met 4 times there even though they were closer in age, and have 13 hardcourt Slams between. Federer and Djokovic have 18 between them and it's just another level entirely.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Meetings at the USO:
Federer-Djokovic: 6 meetings in 9 years (2007-2015)
Sampras-Agassi: 4 meetings in 13 years (1990-2002)
Sampras barely played his rival an still only has 5 USO titles.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
Absolutely. Federer V Djokovic is just on another level, and for them to still have 18 slams between just shows they belong at 1 and 2 respectively.
REKX
Rookie
The reasons why Nadal is ranked above Sampras is the following.
Competition, Sampras did not have any sort of prime greatest hard court players to deal with. Agassi his only 'rival' from what I hear used to frequently go in and out of the top 100, this is not greatest of all time competition. Nadal had to deal with Prime Federer and Prime Djokovic, who are head and shoulders above what Sampras had to deal with. Without Djokovic Nadal would have won more.
Also Nadal's performances stand out. 2009 Australian Open final is widely regarded as the greatest Australian Final of all time. Federer was still in and around his greatest form, yet Nadal was able to beat him. With Djokovic, he beat Djokovic twice at the US Open I believe. So he has gone toe to with the greatest of all time, and has competed. Even the final of the Australian against Djokovic, it was so close and Nadal was competitive. I don't know how a Pete Sampras could last 5 sets against the form Djokovic was in from say 2011-2016.
Competition, Sampras did not have any sort of prime greatest hard court players to deal with. Agassi his only 'rival' from what I hear used to frequently go in and out of the top 100, this is not greatest of all time competition. Nadal had to deal with Prime Federer and Prime Djokovic, who are head and shoulders above what Sampras had to deal with. Without Djokovic Nadal would have won more.
Also Nadal's performances stand out. 2009 Australian Open final is widely regarded as the greatest Australian Final of all time. Federer was still in and around his greatest form, yet Nadal was able to beat him. With Djokovic, he beat Djokovic twice at the US Open I believe. So he has gone toe to with the greatest of all time, and has competed. Even the final of the Australian against Djokovic, it was so close and Nadal was competitive. I don't know how a Pete Sampras could last 5 sets against the form Djokovic was in from say 2011-2016.
abmk
Bionic Poster
90 - won the USO pre-prime, beating Lendl, Mac and Agassi
93 - won beating Chang and Pioline
94 - Sampras just barely returned from injury in 94 and lost to Yzaga.
95 - won beating Courier, Agassi
96 - won beating Corretja, Goran, Chang
97 - was upset by Korda in 4R
98 - lost in 5 to Rafter , was injured after 3rd set.
99 - DNP due to injury
00 - beat Krajicek and Hewitt, but lost to GOATing Safin
01 - beat Rafter, Agassi, Safin, but lost to GOAting Hewitt (was drained to an extent)
02 - won beating Haas, Roddick, Agassi
only "5 titles" ?
only the 93 title was an easy one, not the others.
His competition at the USO was fine, even if he met Agassi "only" 4 times.
And injuries obviously affected him in 94,99 and to an extent in 98.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
To his credit though, Sampras did have some pretty tough fields to deal with even in years where he didn't play Agassi.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Ok, fair enough. I was being too patronizing. Facing your main rival doesn't have to coincide with winning the title hard. There are many ways to win a title hard.
YellowFedBetter
Hall of Fame
I think 98% of players in history would gladly trade their HC careers for his. Not that I’m going to put him with Sampras and co on it, but he has to be top 5 in this century.
metsman
G.O.A.T.
Sampras>Nadal. Trust me, I am a huge fan of both.
REKX
Rookie
When did Sampras ever reach the level that 2009 Nadal Australian achieved?
Bear in mind this was Nadal beating the greatest hard court player of all time.
When did Sampras have this level of competition? He didnt.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
I trust you.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
metsman
G.O.A.T.
Agreed, Nadal's runs like 2009 AO and ESPECIALLY his USO runs were beacons of tough draws. But trust me, Sampras was better. It's tough to pick between favorites, but sometimes you just know. Like vanilla vs chocolate ice cream.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
Yep. Like between Sonny and Cher. Coke and Pepsi. And most importantly between Milli and Vanilli.
REKX
Rookie
In what way?
Nadal competed and beat the greatest hard court and greatest of all time. That says everything.
Federer and Sampras played each other at Wimbledon, and we saw how a very under developed Federer won.
Nadal has demonstrated at times he can take the game to Federer and Djokovic and beyond. When did Sampras demonstrate this?
abmk
Bionic Poster
Here's something that will blow your mind then.
That happened only once in 97.
At the year end, Agassi was top 10 from 88 to 92, 94 to 96, 98 to 2005 -- that's 16 years, yes, read it again, 16 years.
Now, how about you do some homework on :
a) getting the info right
b) if you are not concerned about that and just want to troll, you need to put in a lot more effort into it and not be this 1-D
TheAssassin
Legend
How was Sampras supposed to demonstrate that if he is from a completely different era?
Tennisanity
Legend
LOLLLLLLLL, nailed it. OP is such a pathetic Nadal fan girl
justasport
Professional
I agree 100%
BlueClayGOAT
Semi-Pro
Hahahahahahahahaha.
But you need to add "I'm a Sampras and Nadal fan, but I prefer Sampras" in your post to have any credibility.
Dedans Penthouse
Legend
Pheasant
Legend
Here’s my top 4 hard court players:
1. Federer: 10 slam title on HC is great. But his consistency was even more unnerving. He went to 11 consecutive AO semis and 13 semis in 14 years at that event. This type of consistency is unheard of. He won 5 straight US Open titles and played in 6 straight USO finals. To top it off, Federer won a record 56 consecutive Hard Court matches. Even more impressive, he won 20 straight vs the top 10, lost to Safin at AO, reeled of another 8 straight vs top 10, lost to Nadal, then reeled of another 17 straight against the top 10. That’s a run of 45-2 vs the top 10.
2. Djokovic: Novak won a record 6 AO titles and 8 HC slam titles total. Djoker also made it to 10 straight USO semis. Djoker also won 16 straight HC matches vs the top 10. Djokovic still has time to add to his resume. Djokovic might pass Federer for GOAT on hardcourts. But for now, he is solidly in 2nd place.
3. Pete Sampras: Sampas has 7 HC slam titles,including a record-tying 5 at the USO.
4. Lendl: Ivan won 5 HC slam titles. But that could have been more had the AO been on hardcourts earlier in his career. Lendl made it to 8 consecutive USO finals, an OPen record that might not ever be broken. Had Lendl played in a later era where the courts were slower, he most likely would have added substantially to his total. Lendl is very close to sampras here.
1. Federer: 10 slam title on HC is great. But his consistency was even more unnerving. He went to 11 consecutive AO semis and 13 semis in 14 years at that event. This type of consistency is unheard of. He won 5 straight US Open titles and played in 6 straight USO finals. To top it off, Federer won a record 56 consecutive Hard Court matches. Even more impressive, he won 20 straight vs the top 10, lost to Safin at AO, reeled of another 8 straight vs top 10, lost to Nadal, then reeled of another 17 straight against the top 10. That’s a run of 45-2 vs the top 10.
2. Djokovic: Novak won a record 6 AO titles and 8 HC slam titles total. Djoker also made it to 10 straight USO semis. Djoker also won 16 straight HC matches vs the top 10. Djokovic still has time to add to his resume. Djokovic might pass Federer for GOAT on hardcourts. But for now, he is solidly in 2nd place.
3. Pete Sampras: Sampas has 7 HC slam titles,including a record-tying 5 at the USO.
4. Lendl: Ivan won 5 HC slam titles. But that could have been more had the AO been on hardcourts earlier in his career. Lendl made it to 8 consecutive USO finals, an OPen record that might not ever be broken. Had Lendl played in a later era where the courts were slower, he most likely would have added substantially to his total. Lendl is very close to sampras here.
Similar threads
