JoshDragon
Hall of Fame
Strongly disagree about the tier 1. Sampras should be on tier 1 along with Federer. I also think that Nadal should at least be on tier 2.
Uncle Tony: "Rafa is on Tier 2 or 3 among the Greatests of All Time"
- Thread starter Xuxa Kuerten
- Start date
Strongly disagree about the tier 1. Sampras should be on tier 1 along with Federer. I also think that Nadal should at least be on tier 2.
GameSampras
Banned
Nadal or not. Fed still needs to overcome his main Rival. Thats what GOAT contenders do... or should do. You can say Pete was unlucky as well to have played in an era with deep clay field as well
plain jane
Semi-Pro
Hello. Everyone has their own opinions. Toni Nadal is entitled to his. No one is right or wrong on this discussion so please dont get too heated over what he said. I haven't been following tennis long enough to comment on this topic but I just wanted to add my 2 cents.
grafselesfan
Banned
Nadal was unlucky he sucked doodoo 80% of the time on clay.
grafselesfan
Banned
Sorry I meant Sampras in my last post.
JoshDragon
Hall of Fame
Pete's competition on clay was relatively weak. Agassi made two finals at RG and later won the tournament. That would never happen today.
Pete was just terrible on clay, however I still think he should be on the top tier.
prosealster
Professional
i agree with the weak clay competition....Yevgeny has been used as an example of the 'tough' competition...he's not even a claycourter...the only reason he's got a FO is coz of the weak competition...
GameSampras
Banned
THe 90s? Clay? Weak? Please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And I suppose today's clay court field is strong right?
Djoker, Monfils, Ferrer, Nalbandian are just animals on clay arent they? So much better than Kafel, Bruguera, Muster, Guga, Courier, Andre etc.
Dont even try and make a case for Today's clay court field opposed to the 90s. There is no comparison. None at all
Last edited:
JoshDragon
Hall of Fame
Andre?! You mean the guy who couldn't slide on clay. Please.
GameSampras
Banned
Yea Andre. The guy who won the French and reached 2 RG finals and won the career slam.
You mean Djoker, Monfils, Nalbandian, Ferrer, etc who have done NOTHING on clay?
helloworld
Hall of Fame
Andre may not be the best clay courter of the 90s, but he's definitely better than most clay courters these days. Except for Nadal and Federer, I don't see anyone better than Andre on clay these days.
thalivest
Banned
I agree with one reservation only. Those years good Andre was playing. He was the ultimate Jekyl and Hyde throughout the 90s.
leonidas1982
Hall of Fame
Is he really terrible on clay? 1994 Italian Open (2nd most prestigious clay event) Champion -- back when it was played on a bona fide 64s draw. Davis Cup finals win on clay. Champion in Atlanta and Austria -- both are clay events. A total of 3 ATP clay championships. Is he really horrible?
Thor
Professional
Sampras at RG:
89 - lost to Chang - Eventual champion - Won RG once and once runner up
90 - didnt play
91 - lost 2rd after a 1st round 5 set win over muster
92 - lost to Agassi - Won RG once and twice RU
93 - lost to Bruguera - Eventual champion - Won RG twice and once RU
94 - lost to Courier - Won RG twice and once RU
96 - lost to Kafelnikov(Eventual champion) - Won RG once
Those were his physical prime years and he lost to accomplished players(put aside the let down in 1995).
It seems that you are clueless - Fed may have reached the final 3 times but he never faced this level of competiton on clay.
Heck,in 2004(won 3 slams) he lost to a half Guga...
No
Last edited:
grafselesfan
Banned
You make no sense at all. Sampras's prime was from 1993-2000, not from 1989-1992. It is obvious you are looking at a way to make his record at the French look as flattering as possible. He lucked out to play Chang in the 2nd round in 1989 instead of some other nobody he would have lost to that year, he didnt even play in 1990 so avoided a probable early loss that year. In 1991 he won a first round over Muster when Muster sucked pretty much at the time, and then lost you omit mentioning the relative nobody he lost to in the 2nd round. These were not even his prime years but since you are able to make them sound better than his losses from 1997-2000 you include them instead. What a joke.
grafselesfan
Banned
Pete being a mediocre clay court player aside I agree with those of you who say it is silly for Uncle Tony to not include him in the first tier. He is atleast on a tier with Borg and Federer in the Open era, and clearly above those others.
Thor
Professional
PHYSICAL PRIME
Sampras from 1998 onwards was not in his physical prime - age and injuries took their toll.Sampras was physically another player by 1999 missing 2 slams,most people except trolls like yourself would agree that his prime ended by 1998.RG is not an old man's tournie - so theres no point of adding his defeats in 1997 onwards,but if you insist:
1997 - lost to Magnus Norman (RU at RG)
1998 - lost to Delgado
1999 - lost to Medvedev(Finished RU - lost to Agassi)
2000 - lost to Philippoussis
Your post sucks big time.Apart from 1995 these were all of his performances - no sugar coating - and these are the players who beat him.Im not putting his record in a flattering light,but when people like you talk about his RG record and have no clue as to the competition someone need to say it as it is.
Now since youre a Fed troll lets just wait and see how Fed will do when he's 30 at the FO.
Youre a troll,now go away
Last edited:
Thor
Professional
in 1990 muster won Rome, was RU in Monte Carlo and SF at RG- Yea he sucked BIG TIME
Agreed
Last edited:
lambielspins
Banned
Thor is a Sampras/Nadal addictive troll. Just a warning as you are a new poster it seems. Do not try to make sense of anything he says that involves either Sampras or Nadal. The ignore list would be my best advice for this particular troll poster.
jean pierre
Professional
Vilas is better than Becker, Edberg, McEnroe and Sampras, because they won Grand Slams only on fast surfaces, and Vilas won on clay + on grass !
get it in
Rookie
Uncle Toni's not perfect but he does have some good things to say. He also says a lot too so take it with a grain of salt. Rafael is definitely tier 2 among the greats but a lot can change in the next 5 years. Heck, a lot could change this year. We still have 3 grand slams to go. Not many people would laugh if you put your money on Nadal to win at Roland Garros this year.
clayman2000
Hall of Fame
Toni knows more about tennis than 99% of anyone on this forum, including me
Pete Sampras is the most overrated player in the game's history. He gets a lot of hype because he won the most slams, but Laver and Borg would have clearly won more slams then him if thier careers were longer. If Laver hadn't missed some 5 years as a pro, he could have and probably would have won over 20 slams. And even if he only won them on two surfaces grass and clay; they were two polar opposites.
Borg as we all know retired at age 26 the four time defending champ, and 6 time overall champ at the French, probably would have won there a few more times, we all know how he dominated Wimby, and was a four time finalist at US open. He only played the Aussy once, so we are talking of a player who definitely had Calendar slam potential.
Federer is no doubt about it above Sampras in the ranks. Roger won 3 slams in a year 3 times; Pete never did that. Fed has made the finals of all four majors in a year twice, and currently is working on 19 straight grandslam semies. He has made as many GS finals as Sampras, has only 7 less tournament wins, which he should pass. For those who say Sampras's 6 years at year end 1 beats fed's 4 years, well, in those 6 years for Pete he lost 84 matches. In Fed four best years he lost 24. Sampras in that time won 43 titles, Fed won 42 (in two less years)
I by no means am saying that Pete Sampras is not one of the all time greats. What i am saying is that i do believe Laver, Borg and Fed have all have better careers than Pistol Pete. I would put Pete as the fourth member of that tier 1, but i realize that Toni must understand tennis, if he has created a player with potential to be in that group. Toni is right in saying that those three guys are better than pete, but i think he meant to put Sampras in like a 1a category
For those who are saying where id Agassi, llendl, Wilander etc.....im sure when toni did this he was giving names at the top of his head, its not like he took some time to prepare a list of the greatest players like i jsut did, but merely gave the first names that came to his head; he probably forgot a few names by accident
Last edited:
Cesc Fabregas
Legend
Sampras the most overrated player ever thats literally the funniest thing I have ever heard.
clayman2000
Hall of Fame
well with all the "Sampras vs Federer: Is federer finally the goat" threads i would think so. On this board sampras is cleary viewed by the majority as the goat which is completely incorrect, that is all i am saying
JoshDragon
Hall of Fame
Djokovic, won the Rome Masters Series last year and made the semi-finals at RG twice. Nalbandian was runner up at Rome and made the RG semis twice.
I think that's something.
GameSampras
Banned
Its something I suppose.. But Andre is more accomplished on clay. And that may be the only Masters title on clay Djoker gets unless he gets his head out of his rear end and starts playing tennis again. Now he is getting demolished by Roddick for cripe sakes.
Hell even Sampras you can argue has had more success than those guys on clay.
Last edited:
JoshDragon
Hall of Fame
I think it's very impressive that Djokovic was able to win a clay court title at all. If Andre were playing today he wouldn't have made it past the semi-finals of RG for sure. Nadal and Federer would have taken him out every time.
cucio
Legend
Well, considering the circumstances... Rome '08 was a total fiasco, half of the draw retired with injuries. In fact it is somewhat ironic that Nole, of all people, was the last man standing.
GameSampras
Banned
Oh good god. Hell Sampras has a clay title from Rome and all people do here is diss Pete on clay like he he has never won a match on clay. Yet they praise Djoker as a good or great clay courter
grafselesfan
Banned
Djokovic is only 21 and has already won Rome, the same event Sampras won. Djokovic has been in 2 slam semifinals of the French, one more than Sampras was ever in. Djokovic has already achieved more than Sampras on clay and his career has barely gotten started.
Yes Djokovic is a superior clay courter to Sampras, that is a no brainer. Djokovic is given a fighting shot vs Federer on clay. Do you really think Sampras ever would have? Djokovic has even nearly beaten Nadal on clay last year in Hamburg, would Sampras ever come close to beating Nadal on clay.
Why is anyone even arguing about Sampras on clay on this thread anyway. Even with his mediocrity on clay Sampras is clearly a tier 1 player as he is arguably the greatest grass court player of all time, and an amazing hard court player too.
Yes Djokovic is a superior clay courter to Sampras, that is a no brainer. Djokovic is given a fighting shot vs Federer on clay. Do you really think Sampras ever would have? Djokovic has even nearly beaten Nadal on clay last year in Hamburg, would Sampras ever come close to beating Nadal on clay.
Why is anyone even arguing about Sampras on clay on this thread anyway. Even with his mediocrity on clay Sampras is clearly a tier 1 player as he is arguably the greatest grass court player of all time, and an amazing hard court player too.
GameSampras
Banned
I dunno but Sampras certainly wouldnt be getting humiliated by Roddick 6-2, 6-3 at indian wells at 21 or 22 years old
grafselesfan
Banned
I agree. I am not saying Djokovic is worthy of sniffing Sampras's jockstrap on any surface but clay. I was just pointing out what he has achieved on clay already vs Sampras his whole career as you were speaking of clay specifically. Of course Sampras is a far greater player than Djokovic. Djokovic is young mind you and still could have a much greater career than he thus far, but he will never be anywhere near approaching Sampras.
Some posters might be too hard on Sampras on clay, but I am not sure what the big deal either way is. His greatness is not and never will be based upon his clay court ability. Sampras being possibly the greatest player ever is based upon his being probably the greatest grass court player ever, an amazing player on carpet and indoor hard courts both, one of the greatest medium fast outdoor hard court players ever, and a multi-champion on rebound ace and slower hard courts to top it off. It is not like he is Borg or Nadal, or even Lendl or Wilander, where a big part of his greatness is based around his clay court abilities anyway.
grafselesfan
Banned
As for Djokovic's Indian Wells performance it was a huge dissapointment. I am not a big fan but the guy is a real talent and while he is a pretty good all surface player, hard courts are his best surface still. He should be capable of so much more than that. His mind is a mess now, hopefully he gets it together soon.
GameSampras
Banned
Well I will be the first to admit that Pete was not some marvel on clay. However, its not like like he didnt have any big wins in tournaments on clay. He managed the Rome title. Won the 95 davis cup defeating the russians. I think he underachieved quite a bit at RG. It is a blemish to his resume, not having the French Open title, but I dont think it is TOO BIG of a blemish. Since he could dominate on grass and hard and indoor carpet. People love to compare Fed and PEte on clay, but what some people tend to forget is Roger GREW UP PLAYING ON CLAY. Thats a big difference right there. And its not like PEte played some weak crappy clay court era. THe 90s provided the fans with some of the greatest clay court play and players ever assembled in the history of the game. From Bruguera to Courier to Andre to Muster and down the line. The Clay field was STACKED in the 90s. Way moreso than today
Last edited:
leonidas1982
Hall of Fame
And to add, 2 other clay tour titles: Atlanta and Austria.
grafselesfan
Banned
You make some good points. In fairness there was never a point all those guys you mentioned were near their best together, but it still was a better overall field on clay than today that being said. Sampras did have some good performances on clay. His weakness on clay unfortunately was that he wasnt consistent enough match to match. He showed the ability at times but it just wasnt sustained enough. This wasnt totally attributal to the field as while he was stopped by some very good clay courters like you mentioned, he also had many horrible losses (as much as someone like Thor tries in pathetic fashion to hide it). He just couldnt stay consistent enough on the surface, but like you say he did show some very nice performances on it too at times, did show some really nice clay court tennis at times.
Frankly though Roger's edge over Sampras on clay (and he still undoubtably does have an edge) doesnt mean much to me in the big picture anyway. Roger is better than Pete on clay but still failed to win the French even once, so it really means almost nothing. If he won the French 1 or 2 times sure, then it is meaningful. For players of the caliber of Sampras or Federer if it is a surface neither have won the big event even once than it really becomes insignificant as far as I am concerned.
Also Federer really should have been able to win the French. That he didnt looks bad on him. Like you said he grew up playing on clay so he should be more comfortable on it than Sampras anyway. More importantly he keeps being denied by the same guy over and over, and even if it is one of the 2 or 3 greatest clay courters ever (maybe the greatest ever soon) it still doesnt excuse not winning atleast once when you are a player of Federer's greatness, making finals that often. The fact that he keeps losing to the same guy in the final when on the verge of such a major achievement only is a negative for Federer in my mind. Some might disagree, to each their own I guess.
clayman2000
Hall of Fame
I see what you are saying, but that is like blaming someone fore not being able to beat Sampras at Wimbledon in his hey-day. (now i know ill face some chirps as i earlier called Sampras overrated, but i did not deny he dominence at Wimbledon). There is no doubt that people will look at Fed inability to win one more match to give him the "Fed slam" thrice but it is important to keep im mind that he did make the final
martini1
Hall of Fame
I can see his logic -
- he is NOT an American
- FO / Clay is the best surface
- he doesn't believe in S&V
- perhaps career titles on top of GS titles (total) means more to him
- Gold medal counts
That's just my guess!
carlos djackal
Professional
grafselesfan
Banned
Well the people who failed to do this are not GOAT candidates. Even Agassi isnt really a GOAT candidate like Federer supposably is, and Agassi wasnt playing and losing to Sampras in the finals year after year. Yeah of course it is better to keep making finals in most respects. However if anything it just looks worse for such a great player to get that many opportunities vs the same person and not make good even once, no matter how amazing that player is on the surface.
OTMPut
Hall of Fame
Toni is perhaps also looking at the skill level/talent/versatility of the contenders than just the total number of titles. That's perhaps why he ranks Rafa in tier 2 & 3 and does not put Pete in tier 1.
Pete has a great serve (probably the greatest) and on court agression. Serve being the most important component of tennis, helped him win titles. However other dimentions of his game (return, b/h) does not really measure up to the likes of Laver, Borg or Federer.
Toni has a point, i guess.
Pete has a great serve (probably the greatest) and on court agression. Serve being the most important component of tennis, helped him win titles. However other dimentions of his game (return, b/h) does not really measure up to the likes of Laver, Borg or Federer.
Toni has a point, i guess.
D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
if my grandma had a 16 wheel chair she would be a freightliner!
most slams,most year end nr. 1 (in a row too), most grass court slams... well the list goes on and on. so dont give us if's and whens's...
Uncle Tony is allright, I think Tony is thinking about clay court skills, thats for sure Borg, Federer and Laver are in to tier #1, may be according to him Pete is on tear 2 due his performance on clay.
Any way, i think we can put Pete on tear #1 and thats all, Rafa is on tear number three but as he is playing and devoloping his tennis games he can be real GOAT, only time will show us.
Roger is failing at the end to be the GOAT, is not time to relax, may be two years more but already he needs to reach some GOALS to get that GOAT position.
My best regards
Any way, i think we can put Pete on tear #1 and thats all, Rafa is on tear number three but as he is playing and devoloping his tennis games he can be real GOAT, only time will show us.
Roger is failing at the end to be the GOAT, is not time to relax, may be two years more but already he needs to reach some GOALS to get that GOAT position.
My best regards
ksbh
Banned
Gotta love these kind of arguments. If you took Nadal out of the frame, what have you got? ... Federer GOAT! 
Similar threads
- Poll
