Which statement is more absurd, "peak Djokovic at AO is better than peak Nadal at RG" or "Pete Sampras benefitted from a weak era"?

Which statement is more absurd?

  • peak Djokovic at AO is better than peak Nadal at RG

    Votes: 29 50.0%

  • Pete Sampras benefitted from a weak era

    Votes: 11 19.0%

  • 50/50

    Votes: 8 13.8%

  • Neither is absurd

    Votes: 10 17.2%
  • Total voters
    58
M

Megafanoftennis100

Professional
Honestly, I find both statements to be absurd. But there are arguments for and against those statements:

"peak Djokovic at AO is better than peak Nadal at RG"
- Arguments for: hard court has much tougher competition than clay. There are almost no top 10 players on the ATP Tour who are clay court specialists. Also, Roger Federer on hard courts is a whole different player compared to on clay. He is the 2nd greatest hardcourt player of all time, as well as the 2nd most successful AO champion of all time. And peak Djokovic beat this guy in straight sets when they were both under 30 years old.
- Arguments against: Obviously, 14 > 10. And 112-3 > 89-8. Nuff said.

"Pete Sampras benefitted from a weak era"
- Arguments for: According to Ultimate Tennis Statistics, the number of Slams won adjusted by difficulty for Sampras is 13.53, which is 0.47 less than his actual title count. All of the Big Three have a difficulty level higher than their actual count. For reference, this is the link to the source: https://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/record?recordId=GrandSlamTitlesDifficultyAdjusted
- Arguments against: Sampras had to constantly battle through many All-Time-Great players or, at least, Grand Slam champions. Agassi, Becker, Edberg, Courier, Rafter, Ivanisevic, Stich, Krajicek etc. were all his competitors at that time. And despite the competitiveness of the field, Sampras still managed to win 14 Grand Slam titles, including SEVEN Wimbledon titles against so many grass-court experts at that time.

But which statement sounds more absurd do you guys?
 
Give a peak Nadal at RG Djokovic's AO competition and he still destroys it.

Who has a chance of doing anything? Murray AO 12/13? Wawrinka AO 13/14? Nadal destroys them even if you translate that level to clay.
 
Last edited:
RS said:
Give a peak Nadal at RG Djokovic's AO competition and he still destroys it.

Who has a chance of doing anything? Murray AO 12/13? Wawrinka AO 13/14/? Nadal destroys them even if you translate that level to clay.
Click to expand...

That works both ways, Novak at the AO with Nadal's RG competition at his absolute peak on plexicushion would also mow down everyone! There were a few matches here and there, where his level was off and wobbly, like that horrible match against Simon (forgot what year this was...), when he made over like hundred of UEs? Almost lost that one, but pulled through just by some hair...but let's not forget Nadal himself was close to losing to Isner at RG of all people in round one before we gloat (was it 2010 or 2011 don't remember?! It was one of those i think)!...
 
First statement is more absurd because it literally is absurd, but the second is actually true. Strong competition in the early 90's but weak competition in the late 90's.

Pete literally ended 1998 as the world #1 despite only winning Wimbledon and a handful of smaller tournaments while only producing a few good runs in the other big tournaments. Even that Wimbledon win was possibly his lowest level winning run of the seven (though obviously it was still good by a general standard because it's Sampras).

Each of the Big 3 has had outright better seasons in which they ended up as the #2 or #3.

Competition was also kinda weak in 1997 and 1999 but not to the same extent.
 
Let's throw Murray AO 11/13/15/16 and Fed AO 08/11/16 in the party to finish my rant about the much tougher competition Djokovic faced at AO that was going to stop Nadal at RG. :p
 
Djokovic facing stronger competition at AO is a myth anyway. Hell, he faced Murray in 4 finals during his prime, none of which was even that close. (all ended in straight sets, or with Murray collapsing) Some think this is tougher than facing prime/peak Federer/Djokovic at RG? And don't even make me start about the last few years.
 
Third Serve said:
First statement is more absurd because it literally is absurd, but the second is actually true. Strong competition in the early 90's but weak competition in the late 90's.

Pete literally ended 1998 as the world #1 despite only winning Wimbledon and a handful of smaller tournaments while only producing a few good runs in the other big tournaments. Even that Wimbledon win was possibly his lowest level winning run of the seven (though obviously it was still good by a general standard because it's Sampras).

Each of the Big 3 has had outright better seasons in which they ended up as the #2 or #3.

Competition was also kinda weak in 1997 and 1999 but not to the same extent.
Click to expand...

98 was not that weak, Sampras only won Wimbledon because Rafter was at his peak during the NA HC summer, winning Montreal, Cincinnati and winning USO by defeating Sampras in five sets, and Pete also picked up a niggle there. Cannot call that weak, when a top class player was at his peak.

Also it was peak Moya, won RG, got to semis of USO. It wasn't super strong like 90-95, but it was still strong. It wasn't weak at all.
 
StrongRule said:
Djokovic facing stronger competition at AO is a myth anyway. Hell, he faced Murray in 4 finals during his prime, none of which was even that close. (all ended in straight sets, or with Murray collapsing) Some think this is tougher than facing prime/peak Federer/Djokovic at RG? And don't even make me start about the last few years. The only year where one can say Nadal's RG competition was somewhat comparable to Djokovic's 2023 AO was 2010. But Nadal was at his peak then, not 36 years old.
Click to expand...
Almagro and Sod tougher than anyone Djokovic faced in AO 2023 :p

Melzer isn't really worse than anyone honestly. Him losing in 3 wasn't even any worse considering it's 2010 at RG Nadal.
 
StrongRule said:
Djokovic facing stronger competition at AO is a myth anyway. Hell, he faced Murray in 4 finals during his prime, none of which was even that close. (those that ended in 4 sets ended with Murray totally collapsing) Some think this is tougher than facing prime/peak Federer/Djokovic at RG? And don't even make me start about the last few years.
Click to expand...
I am only comparing peak Djokovic to peak Nadal, so the last few years are irrelevant in this case.
This is basically 2011 Djokovic at AO vs 2008 Nadal at RG. Both players straight-setted Roger Federer who was still in his 20s. Of course, Rafa played better throughout the entire tournament (because he dropped 0 sets, whereas Djokovic did drop a set), but many top players use the earlier rounds as "warm-up" rounds and usually save their best tennis for the 2nd week. And if we compare the semis and finals matches of Rafa at RG in 2008 to those of Djokovic at AO in 2011, they are closer than people may think. There is a landslide of a difference between straight-setting Federer on hard courts and doing the same on clay. Federer is not even top 5 among the greatest clay court players of all time (not even in terms of level), but on hard courts, he is easily #2. It doesn't matter even if you triple bagel Federer on clay, this does not guarantee that you will do the same on other surfaces, especially not hard or grass.
 
RS said:
Almagro and Sod tougher than anyone Djokovic faced in AO 2023 :p

Melzer isn't really worse than anyone honestly. Him losing in 3 wasn't even any worse considering it's 2010 at RG Nadal.
Click to expand...
To be fair, Soderling didn't play a good final, and Almagro was never going to win the match, as competitive as he made it before the tiebreaks. Of course, 2010 is not part of the asterisk era by any means.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RS
Megafanoftennis100 said:
I am only comparing peak Djokovic to peak Nadal, so the last few years are irrelevant in this case.
This is basically 2011 Djokovic at AO vs 2008 Nadal at RG. Both players straight-setted Roger Federer who was still in his 20s. Of course, Rafa played better throughout the entire tournament (because he dropped 0 sets, whereas Djokovic did drop a set), but many top players use the earlier rounds as "warm-up" rounds and usually save their best tennis for the 2nd week. And if we compare the semis and finals matches of Rafa at RG in 2008 to those of Djokovic at AO in 2011, they are closer than people may think. There is a landslide of a difference between straight-setting Federer on hard courts and doing the same on clay. Federer is not even top 5 among the greatest clay court players of all time (not even in terms of level), but on hard courts, he is easily #2. It doesn't matter even if you triple bagel Federer on clay, this does not guarantee that you will do the same on other surfaces, especially not hard or grass.
Click to expand...
AO 2011 is the only closeish one I will give Nolefam that. Loses to Nadal RG 08 in competitive 4.
 
RS said:
AO 2011 is the only closeish one I will give Nolefam that. Loses to Nadal RG 08 in competitive 4.
Click to expand...
What about 2016? Apart from the 4th round match against Simon, Djokovic played scarily good in the semis and finals. Winning 6-1, 6-2 against Roger Federer, even if he is "past his prime", on HARD COURTS, is just insanely impressive. Besides, Federer went on to win the next two AO events in 2017 and 2018 when he was older, which proves that his level in 2016 was still far from being poor.
 
alexio said:
Click to expand...
OMG what did I just watch?!!! Wilander here seriously makes the characters from the movie Idiocracy look intelligent.
I firmly believe that Wilander was bribed by someone to say those things. This is even worse than saying "peak Djokovic is better than peak Federer on grass"
 
Megafanoftennis100 said:
OMG what did I just watch?!!! Wilander here seriously makes the characters from the movie Idiocracy look intelligent.
I firmly believe that Wilander was bribed by someone to say those things. This is even worse than saying "peak Djokovic is better than peak Federer on grass"
Click to expand...
yea its him
 
1st one. Pete had his share of weaker wins. You can put any player in history against Nadal at RG and they won’t make much of a dent. Maybe he loses 1-2 in his later years if he had a 25 year old fed or Djokovic to contend with.
 
fedfan24 said:
1st one. Pete had his share of weaker wins. You can put any player in history against Nadal at RG and they won’t make much of a dent. Maybe he loses 1-2 in his later years if he had a 25 year old fed or Djokovic to contend with.
Click to expand...
I think 2016 Djoker could beat post-2013 versions of Rafa at RG (apart from 2017 and 2020). But as for the pre-2012 versions, no one would be able to defeat him (except for the 2009 version).
 
Megafanoftennis100 said:
I think 2016 Djoker could beat post-2013 versions of Rafa at RG (apart from 2017 and 2020). But as for the pre-2012 versions, no one would be able to defeat him (except for the 2009 version).
Click to expand...
best versions of fed could beat 2021, 2022 versions too and battle hard with 2019. Was thinking more 2013 Djokovic think that was his best there, then maybe 2016?
 
Djokovic is NOT better than Nadal at RG, I think virtually everyone agrees Nadal at RG is the most dominant player ever, maybe Borg can compete if you don't factor in longevity. But I don't see people claiming Djokovic's level at the AO is higher. Djokovic at the AO is comparable with Federer/Sampras at Wimbledon.

However, if Djokovic wins the next AO he'll have 11 which would be 12 without the deportation. Not too far off Nadal's RG 14 to call a comparison absurd (assuming Nadal doesn't add to that tally, which I wouldn't rule out). I still wouldn't make a case for someone with 12 being over someone with 14 anyway.



StrongRule said:
Djokovic facing stronger competition at AO is a myth anyway. Hell, he faced Murray in 4 finals during his prime, none of which was even that close. (all ended in straight sets, or with Murray collapsing) Some think this is tougher than facing prime/peak Federer/Djokovic at RG? And don't even make me start about the last few years.
Click to expand...


Circular reasoning, if Djokovic's level was worse and the matches were closer he would have better competition? Competition is not faced on how tough the match is. You can face better competition winning with a triple 6-1 than someone winning in fifth because the winner played at a higher level. Maybe the one that lost in straights would have beaten the one that lost in five. Nonetheless, Murray didn't lose in straights except in 2011.

Was Nadal's competition weak in 2008 because he beat Djokovic and Federer in straights? Federer being a demolition, now it was because his level was absurdly high. Not because bad competition.
 
Megafanoftennis100 said:
I think 2016 Djoker could beat post-2013 versions of Rafa at RG (apart from 2017 and 2020). But as for the pre-2012 versions, no one would be able to defeat him (except for the 2009 version).
Click to expand...


2005 is beatable, 2011 too. 2007, 2008, 2010 and 2012 unbeatable. 2006, who knows, with a redlining performance it can happen.
 
StrongRule said:
Djokovic facing stronger competition at AO is a myth anyway. Hell, he faced Murray in 4 finals during his prime, none of which was even that close. (all ended in straight sets, or with Murray collapsing) Some think this is tougher than facing prime/peak Federer/Djokovic at RG? And don't even make me start about the last few years.
Click to expand...
He faced Federer and Nadal multiple times too just wasn’t always the final. Beating Murray and Nadal back to back in 2012 was impressive.
 
Megafanoftennis100 said:
What about 2016? Apart from the 4th round match against Simon, Djokovic played scarily good in the semis and finals. Winning 6-1, 6-2 against Roger Federer, even if he is "past his prime", on HARD COURTS, is just insanely impressive. Besides, Federer went on to win the next two AO events in 2017 and 2018 when he was older, which proves that his level in 2016 was still far from being poor.
Click to expand...
RG was 6-1 6-3 6-0 though and Djokovic was good and couldn't quite steal a set. ;)

Sure no one should deny Djokovic at AO was mighty tough still though 2016 included.
 
Last edited:
ndal at rg > djo at ao > fred at wimby.. i hope its a correct hierarchy
 
Hitman said:
98 was not that weak, Sampras only won Wimbledon because Rafter was at his peak during the NA HC summer, winning Montreal, Cincinnati and winning USO by defeating Sampras in five sets, and Pete also picked up a niggle there. Cannot call that weak, when a top class player was at his peak.

Also it was peak Moya, won RG, got to semis of USO. It wasn't super strong like 90-95, but it was still strong. It wasn't weak at all.
Click to expand...
Rafter was very good in the summer, I agree. But that's literally it.

Among the players who defeated Sampras that year were Delgado and Kucera (both at the Slams), Woodforde, Paes, Stoltenberg, Santoro (6-1 6-1 even), Muster on hard court, Ferreira (x2), and Corretja indoors. His record against the top 10 was noticeably poor for YE-#1's in general, and he only beat 1 top 10 player in his four tournament victories that year: Goran Ivanisevic, who probably didn't even play his third best Wimbledon match against Sampras in the 1998 final.

1998 was one of the loweest levels from a YE-#1 ever, and that could not have been achieved in a stronger field that was capable of stringing together more than a few decent showings. Literally Roddick 2003 was probably better.
 
Last edited:
Saying that Joker’s peak at the AO is higher than RAFA’s peak at RG is far more absurd. He trails in literally any meaningful metric you go by. Whether it’s # of titles, total wins, W/L record/win percentage etc. RAFA has won RG 4x (2008, 2010, 2017, and 2020) without dropping a set which is an OE record. Joker hasn’t done it even once. Heck, even Fraud has managed to win the AO without dropping a set so you could make an argument that even he “peaked” higher at the AO than Joker did.
 
Third Serve said:
Rafter was very good in the summer, I agree. But that's literally it.

Among the players who defeated Sampras that year were Delgado and Kucera (both at the Slams), Woodforde, Paes, Stoltenberg, Santoro (6-1 6-1 even), Muster on hard court, Ferreira (x2), and Corretja indoors. His record against the top 10 was noticeably poor for YE-#1's in general, and he only beat 1 top 10 player in his four tournament victories that year: Goran Ivanisevic, who probably didn't even play his third best Wimbledon match against Sampras in the 1998 final.

1998 was one of the loweest levels from a YE-#1 ever, and that could not have been achieved in a stronger field that was capable of stringing together more than a few decent showings. Literally Roddick 2003 was probably better.
Click to expand...

Rios was at his peak at the start of the year also, despite not winning AO, but that is questionable considering what was said later about Korda and his doping.
 
Who played at a higher level?

1. Nadal RG 2009 or Djokovic RG 2023
2. Djokovic AO 2023 or Roddick Wim 2003
3. Wawrinka AO 2017 or Djokovic Wim 2012
4. Nadal RG 2022 or Djokovic RG 2015
5. Nadal RG 2017 or Djokovic AO 2008
6. Federer Wim 17 or Djokovic USO 12
 
RS said:
Who played at a higher level?

1. Nadal RG 2009 or Djokovic RG 2023
2. Djokovic AO 2023 or Roddick Wim 2003
3. Wawrinka AO 2017 or Djokovic Wim 2012
4. Nadal RG 2022 or Djokovic RG 2015
5. Nadal RG 2017 or Djokovic AO 2008
6. Federer Wim 17 or Djokovic USO 12
Click to expand...
1. Djokovic
2. Djokovic
3. Djokovic
4 Nadal
5. Nadal
6. Federer
 
  • Like
Reactions: RS
I've been bragging about Federer and Djoker lately. It's time to give Nadal his due praise.

His FO run is the most amazing display of dominance in the history of tennis and it's not close:

14 FO titles: This is amazing, but maybe the most breakable record of the ones I'll list here. Maybe, some dude comes along and plays 25 years and bags 15. Who knows? Longevity is increasing.

112-3 record at RG. This is absolutely ridiculous. It's one thing to have 100 match wins at a tourney(very rare). But to lose only 3 matches with 100+ wins is stupendous.

Winning 4 FO titles without dropping a single set. Let's put it this way. Winning a slam title without dropping a set has only happened 11 times during the 55 full seasons of the Open Era and Nadal has 4 of them(36%), all at the same tourney. That is absolutely ridiculous.

5-peat + 4-peat +4-peat, all at the same slam event. A 4 peat at a slam event is very rare. A 5 peat is even rarer. A pair of 4-peats and a 5-peat at the same slam event is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of, except maybe what he did listed below.

Starting out 31-0 at a slam event is absolutely ridiculous. Winning a slam in the Open Era during your very first attempt is very rare. I believe that was only done at the AO in the 1970s with incredibly weak draws while half of the best players skipped the event. That is, until Nadal showed up against a full field and won the first FOUR FO tourneys that he entered.

Nadal is so ridiculous at this event. It's been an amazing ride. Let's give that guy some serious credit.
 
BauerAlmeida said:
Djokovic is NOT better than Nadal at RG, I think virtually everyone agrees Nadal at RG is the most dominant player ever, maybe Borg can compete if you don't factor in longevity. But I don't see people claiming Djokovic's level at the AO is higher. Djokovic at the AO is comparable with Federer/Sampras at Wimbledon.

However, if Djokovic wins the next AO he'll have 11 which would be 12 without the deportation. Not too far off Nadal's RG 14 to call a comparison absurd (assuming Nadal doesn't add to that tally, which I wouldn't rule out). I still wouldn't make a case for someone with 12 being over someone with 14 anyway.






Circular reasoning, if Djokovic's level was worse and the matches were closer he would have better competition? Competition is not faced on how tough the match is. You can face better competition winning with a triple 6-1 than someone winning in fifth because the winner played at a higher level. Maybe the one that lost in straights would have beaten the one that lost in five. Nonetheless, Murray didn't lose in straights except in 2011.

Was Nadal's competition weak in 2008 because he beat Djokovic and Federer in straights? Federer being a demolition, now it was because his level was absurdly high. Not because bad competition.
Click to expand...
You forgot 2016? And Djokovic's level in this final was not nearly as high as in 2011. Murray was (as usual) terrible on the big points, including hitting multiple double faults on the last tiebreak. And don't make me start about his 2015 collapse out of nowhere.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DSH
RS said:
Who played at a higher level?

1. Nadal RG 2009 or Djokovic RG 2023
2. Djokovic AO 2023 or Roddick Wim 2003
3. Wawrinka AO 2017 or Djokovic Wim 2012
4. Nadal RG 2022 or Djokovic RG 2015
5. Nadal RG 2017 or Djokovic AO 2008
6. Federer Wim 17 or Djokovic USO 12
Click to expand...
Djokovic
Tie
Djokovic
Djokovic
Nadal
Federer
 
  • Like
Reactions: RS
Pheasant said:
I've been bragging about Federer and Djoker lately. It's time to give Nadal his due praise.

His FO run is the most amazing display of dominance in the history of tennis and it's not close:

14 FO titles: This is amazing, but maybe the most breakable record of the ones I'll list here. Maybe, some dude comes along and plays 25 years and bags 15. Who knows? Longevity is increasing.

112-3 record at RG. This is absolutely ridiculous. It's one thing to have 100 match wins at a tourney(very rare). But to lose only 3 matches with 100+ wins is stupendous.

Winning 4 FO titles without dropping a single set. Let's put it this way. Winning a slam title without dropping a set has only happened 11 times during the 55 full seasons of the Open Era and Nadal has 4 of them(36%), all at the same tourney. That is absolutely ridiculous.

5-peat + 4-peat +4-peat, all at the same slam event. A 4 peat at a slam event is very rare. A 5 peat is even rarer. A pair of 4-peats and a 5-peat at the same slam event is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of, except maybe what he did listed below.

Starting out 31-0 at a slam event is absolutely ridiculous. Winning a slam in the Open Era during your very first attempt is very rare. I believe that was only done at the AO in the 1970s with incredibly weak draws while half of the best players skipped the event. That is, until Nadal showed up against a full field and won the first FOUR FO tourneys that he entered.

Nadal is so ridiculous at this event. It's been an amazing ride. Let's give that guy some serious credit.
Click to expand...

Rafa's toughest clay competitor is Nole.

Imagine if Nole's toughest HC competitor is Rafa.
 
Pheasant said:
Starting out 31-0 at a slam event is absolutely ridiculous. Winning a slam in the Open Era during your very first attempt is very rare. I believe that was only done at the AO in the 1970s with incredibly weak draws while half of the best players skipped the event. That is, until Nadal showed up against a full field and won the first FOUR FO tourneys that he entered.
Click to expand...
Wilander achieved it in 82 at the French also. Beat Lendl, Vilas and a couple of other top 10 players. He was only 17!
 
Rafa at FO is basically the greatest dominance ever across sports. Don’t think anyone can rival that, so any statement that says otherwise is absurd.
 
pirhaksar said:
Rafa at FO is basically the greatest dominance ever across sports. Don’t think anyone can rival that, so any statement that says otherwise is absurd.
Click to expand...
dont jump the gun pls.. 887-2 is still better somehow i believe than 111-3
 
The Blond Blur said:
Saying that Joker’s peak at the AO is higher than RAFA’s peak at RG is far more absurd. He trails in literally any meaningful metric you go by. Whether it’s # of titles, total wins, W/L record/win percentage etc. RAFA has won RG 4x (2008, 2010, 2017, and 2020) without dropping a set which is an OE record. Joker hasn’t done it even once. Heck, even Fraud has managed to win the AO without dropping a set so you could make an argument that even he “peaked” higher at the AO than Joker did.
Click to expand...
Djokovic had moments when he was close to winning AO without dropping a set. 2011 when he dropped only 1 set and 2023 when he also only dropped 1 set.
But here is the thing, as I have said before, top players usually play below their best level in the earlier rounds of Slams to save their best tennis for the 2nd week of the tournament. E.g. when we compare Nadal's 2007 Wimbledon run to Alcaraz's 2023 Wimbledon run, Alcaraz's 1st week was more impressive, but Rafa's 2nd week was way more impressive than Alcaraz's 1st, hence giving 2007 Rafa the edge.
Therefore, the more reasonable comparison would be their performances in the 2nd week of Slams.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
  • Poll Poll
Which statement is more absurd? part 2 series - for tennis and Star Wars fans
2 3
Replies
141
Views
5K
Sudacafan
Sudacafan
M
  • Poll Poll
Which is more likely, peak Djokovic defeating peak Federer at Wimbledon or peak Djokovic defeating peak Nadal at Roland Garros?
2 3
Replies
129
Views
4K
BorgTheGOAT
BorgTheGOAT
D
  • Poll Poll
Peak Djokovic vs Peak Nadal
4 5 6
Replies
262
Views
19K
nolefam_2024
nolefam_2024
M
  • Poll Poll
Which statement is more absurd? part 3 series - for tennis and IB students (or former IB students)
Replies
21
Views
851
octobrina10
octobrina10
M
  • Poll Poll
Which statement is more ridiculous?
Replies
20
Views
841
Aabye5
Aabye5
Back
Top