Who had, have or will have better competition...Sampras or Nadal?

[Mungo73]

enough with the Sampras-Fed threads!

its time to start the Nadal-Sampras threads! two of the greatest players ever!!!

Nadal is on his way to reaching the 14 GS of Sampras barring mono or back injury.

but who had, has or will have better competition?

Sampras- Becker and Edberg were not in their primes. So Agassi, Courier, Chang, Krajicek, Rafter, Kafelnikov, Ivanisevic, Rios, young Hewitt, young Safin, Delgado, Yzaga...

Nadal- Federer!!!... + Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian + young players Murray, Djokovic, Monfils, Tsonga, Del Potro, Gulbis, Dimitrov! these young players will be good very good and really tough competition!!!

so who will have had better competition when its all said and done, Nadal or Sampras? :twisted:

first vote goes to Nadal!!!

 

[thalivest]

Too early to tell. With Federer, Nadal already had one far tougher opponent than any Sampras had though (including Agassi who is clearly inferior and far less consistent in Sampras's prime than Federer).

 

[GameSampras]

Today there is more depth down to the top 50-100 players in the world I think but at the top spots, the players were better in Pete's day IMO. Especially the early 90s. Sure Edberg may have been passed his peak but he was #2 in the world. Courier, Becker, Andre etc among others are greater than both Murray and Djoker at this point. (Nadal's main competition in the future Im assuming) Murray and Djokovic havent totally proved themselves to be legit champions. Murray has a lot of potential and could among the best, but he has yet to prove himself when it matter most. Djoker has alot of improving to do as well (especially his fitness).

Agreed.. Too early to tell. But at this point.. Sampras had it wayyy tougher especially with his rise to the top of the game. Moreso than either Roger or Rafa. Courier, Becker, Edberg, Agassi etc.. all greater than Roddick, Safin, Nalbandian, Hewitt ever were. And so far greater than Djoker or Murray

 

[veroniquem]

Federer is the greatest player in history (or at least one of). No Federer fan will dare contradict that assertion! That means of course that Nadal has the toughest possible competition just with that one guy... I've always wondered if I would have admired Nadal as much if he hadn't been able to overcome and consistently dominate the guy that everyone considered unbeatable, it was undoubtedly a part of why I became a huge Nadal fan.

 

[Nadal_Freak]

Federer is the greatest player in history (or at least one of). No Federer fan will dare contradict that assertion! That means of course that Nadal has the toughest possible competition just with that one guy... I've always wondered if I would have admired Nadal as much if he hadn't been able to overcome and consistently dominate the guy that everyone considered unbeatable, it was undoubtedly a part of why I became a huge Nadal fan.

Agreed. I get bitter toward players that act fearful of Federer despite how well they were playing in the tournament. Nadal will not drop his level.

 

[leonidas1982]

how can you call Djokovic, Murray, et al "young players". are they not contemporaries of Nadal? You exclude Becker (Oz champ 96) and Edberg (US Open 1999 and world ranking of #2) for being "past their primes" , yet you include up an comers Safin and Hewitt -- contemporaries of Federer -- as Pete and his generation are aging.

Which one is it, exclude the overlap or include?

 

[GameSampras]

Agreed. I get bitter toward players that act fearful of Federer despite how well they were playing in the tournament. Nadal will not drop his level.

Yea it is nice to see a player with some mental toughness and a pair that will not back down just because he is playing Roger. I swear during Roger's peak, Players were already looking to throw in the towel at the beginning of the match.

 

[thalivest]

Today there is more depth down to the top 50-100 players in the world I think but at the top spots, the players were better in Pete's day IMO. Especially the early 90s. Sure Edberg may have been passed his peak but he was #2 in the world. Courier, Becker, Andre etc among others are greater than both Murray and Djoker at this point. (Nadal's main competition in the future Im assuming) Murray and Djokovic havent totally proved themselves to be legit champions. Murray has a lot of potential and could among the best, but he has yet to prove himself when it matter most. Djoker has alot of improving to do as well (especially his fitness).

Agreed.. Too early to tell. But at this point.. Sampras had it wayyy tougher especially with his rise to the top of the game. Moreso than either Roger or Rafa. Courier, Becker, Edberg, Agassi etc.. all greater than Roddick, Safin, Nalbandian, Hewitt ever were. And so far greater than Djoker or Murray

Sampras's reign I would say was from 1993-1999. Edberg and Becker were already a bit past their prime by 1993, let alone the years to follow (I would say 1985-1991/1992 was the prime for both). Courier's short prime as a player was from 1991-1993 so Pete only had 1 year of that to deal with (and in it Courier even took him to a 4th set tiebreak on grass). Agassi had a prime for about a year from 1994 U.S Open-1995 U.S Open, then had most of his prime from 1999-2002 and Pete and Andre's passed hardly crossed at all in 1999 except for Wimbledon and the year end event.

It is too early to tell how good Murray and Djokovic and a few of the others will become but atleast they are going to be in their primes at the same time as Nadal which is different than what Sampras had with Becker, Edberg, Courier, and even Agassi. Federer of course is greater than all of those I mentioned even if Sampras had them for extended periods in their primes during his dominance, which IMO he didnt.

 

[GameSampras]

Sampras's reign I would say was from 1993-1999. Edberg and Becker were already a bit past their prime by 1993, let alone the years to follow (I would say 1985-1991/1992 was the prime for both). Courier's short prime as a player was from 1991-1993 so Pete only had 1 year of that to deal with (and in it Courier even took him to a 4th set tiebreak on grass). Agassi had a prime for about a year from 1994 U.S Open-1995 U.S Open, then had most of his prime from 1999-2002 and Pete and Andre's passed hardly crossed at all in 1999 except for Wimbledon and the year end event.

It is too early to tell how good Murray and Djokovic and a few of the others will become but atleast they are going to be in their primes at the same time as Nadal which is different than what Sampras had with Becker, Edberg, Courier, and even Agassi. Federer of course is greater than all of those I mentioned even if Sampras had them for extended periods in their primes during his dominance, which IMO he didnt.

Federer is greater than the players Pete met for sure. But Nadal may have had a much tougher time beating the likes of Edberg, Becker, Andre etc than he would defeating Roger. Just my opinion. Andre could handle the topspin with his BH than Roger could with his 1 handed BH. And Nadal would have had his troubles I think with the attackers of the 90s IMO. Nadal is a horrible matchup for Fed's style of game. The Serve-volleyers and someone with BH like Andre's could have spelled trouble for Nadal. Pure speculation of course. But if we look at how Tsonga (Who isnt a legit great serve volleyers like Pete, Becker, Edberg) handled Nadal and how someone with a great BH like Murray (much like Andre) troubled Nadal because he could handle the topspin, that kind of shows how players could handle Nadals style of game before. But still speculation.

Nadal's style of game is great for this era. The 90s era he would have his work cut for him with the relentless attackers IMO. nadal matches up well with players who dont attack but wouldnt matchup against players who can put pressure on him.

I cant see Nadal winning a slam outside of RG in the 90s. Maybe an AO or two

 

[edmondsm]

No doubt it's Nadal. Nadal has had to go through a 13 slam winner for all of his GS wins. Sampras went through Pioline twice, Todd Martin, Carlos Moya.....no comparison IMO.

 

[icedevil0289]

I don't really have any idea of the competition sampras faced because I wasn't watching tennis then, but I think the majority voted for nadal because he had to go through federer to get the wins. As much as I love federer and think he's a great player, I don't think he gave nadal much competition. Especially not recently anyway. I mean look at their head to head, fed is really not much of a rival/competitor to nadal. As far as the rest of the field goes, I think most can agree that its nadal/fed, and then everyone else. Obviously murray and djkovic are great players, but they haven't really given nadal much competition, although murray has beaten nadal twice in a row.

 

[GameSampras]

Nadal's era has just begun really. I wouldnt put Nadal among Fed's era to be honest. Fed's rivals were Davy, Roddick, Hewitt, Nalby,Safin etc. I wont even count old man agassi really. Nadal was still young and had not yet primed prior to 08. He couldnt reach the final of a HC slam. He was good at Wimbeldon. But he was mostly a clay courter there for a while during Fed's period of dominance.

That said. Nadal's era (08-present) are a bunch of unproven commodities outside of Fed. So of course you cant choose Nads era over Pete's. Regardless of how many say Nadal had to deal with Fed. Fed hasnt been much of a rival to Nadal lately. How long has it been since Fed beat Nadal when it matters most?

 

[coloskier]

Sampras, hands down. Agassi would destroy anybody playing now except Nadal and Fed, and most likely give Nadal some real trouble. Edberg would have bombed Nadal because it is a very poor matchup for him. Same with Becker. In fact, ANY good serve and volleyer from the 90's (there are NO good serve and volleyers now) would give Nadal fits because he plays so deep on service returns and those guys knew how to serve, not necessarily a fast serve, but ALWAYS in the corners. Courier with his inside out forehand would have really messed with Nadal's crosscourt forehand. He LOVED a high ball. Flat hitters give Nadal fits, and most of those players mentioned hit flat.

 

[NadalandFedererfan]

Sampras, hands down. Agassi would destroy anybody playing now except Nadal and Fed, and most likely give Nadal some real trouble. Edberg would have bombed Nadal because it is a very poor matchup for him. Same with Becker. In fact, ANY good serve and volleyer from the 90's (there are NO good serve and volleyers now) would give Nadal fits because he plays so deep on service returns and those guys knew how to serve, not necessarily a fast serve, but ALWAYS in the corners. Courier with his inside out forehand would have really messed with Nadal's crosscourt forehand. He LOVED a high ball. Flat hitters give Nadal fits, and most of those players mentioned hit flat.

Edberg and Becker by the mid 90s were clearly past their prime and losing early rounds of half the slams to nobodies, yet they would bomb Nadal. Agassi wasnt even a top 5 player 70% of the time from 92-98, yet would destroy everyone except Nadal and Federer today. Delusional fool.

 

[Spider]

Nadal - hands down.

Sampras didn't have to go through a champion of a player with 13 slams to win any of his slams, like Nadal had to deal with in each of his 6 slam victories.

Anything more is pure speculation, as the conditions have changed, over the course of these years. But since you guys are in specualting mood, I'll join the party too ().

If we have to consider Agassi against Nadal (in today's conditions), well there is no way Andre would posses any trouble for Nadal on the clay courts, and on grass Nadal would still own Agassi. On the slow hard courts, I would give the edge to Nadal on each occation they play, and the faster courts, I would give the edge to Agassi. So overall, Nadal would definitely own the head to head, unless Agassi doesn't do consistently well on Clay and Grass (which means that the head to head would look decent but Nadal would still be way ahead in the points department).

Again this is all mere speculation, and nothing can be proven. Federer's GOAT talk started around when he had won his 6th slam, so I am not surprised Nadal has joined this discussion when he just had his .

PS: and one thing for Nadal is on the red stuff he is a super human, the likes of which we have never seen in tennis history. Winning 19 out of the last 21 tournaments he has entered on that surface, thats just phenomenal (also considering RG 08 was one of the most dominating performances in the history of tennis by any champion, I believe.). Heck if it wasn't for Nadal, Federer would have captured 19 slams (on all surfaces), and would be considered the undisputed GOAT by a long margin now

 

[GameSampras]

Nadal - hands down.

Sampras didn't have to go through a champion of a player with 13 slams to win any of his slams, like Nadal had to deal with in each of his 6 slam victories.

Anything more is pure speculation, as the conditions have changed, over the course of these years. But since you guys are in specualting mood, I'll join the party too ().

If we have to consider Agassi against Nadal (in today's conditions), well there is no way Andre would posses any trouble for Nadal on the clay courts, and on grass Nadal would still own Agassi. On the slow hard courts, I would give the edge to Nadal on each occation they play, and the faster courts, I would give the edge to Agassi. So overall, Nadal would definitely own the head to head, unless Agassi doesn't do consistently well on Clay and Grass (which means that the head to head would look decent but Nadal would still be way ahead in the points department).

Again this is all mere speculation, and nothing can be proven. Federer's GOAT talk started around when he had won his 6th slam, so I am not surprised Nadal has joined this discussion when he just had his .

PS: and one thing for Nadal is on the red stuff he is a super human, the likes of which we have never seen in tennis history. Winning 19 out of the last 21 tournaments he has entered on that surface, thats just phenomenal (also considering RG 08 was one of the most dominating performances in the history of tennis by any champion, I believe.). Heck if it wasn't for Nadal, Federer would have captured 19 slams (on all surfaces), and would be considered the undisputed GOAT by a long margin now

OMG. Sampras had to go through multiple champions. ANd some great ones early on his prime. Nadal has to go through 1 great player usually and the rest pretty average outside of Murray I suppose. A player (Fed) nowadays he has no trouble whooping. Fed is no rival to Nadal anymore. The last 3 out of the 4 slams Fed has been Nadal's whipping boy. And before 08 most of Nadal's wins over Fed came off on clay. Nadals era didnt really begin until 2008. So we dont know what kind of competition he is going to have. The suspected rivals will be Djoker and Murray. Who else is there after these two? There is only 1 slam in between both of them.

Fed is no walk in the park to beat. But for Nadal he usually is.. It isnt a much of a rivalry anymore since its so lopsided. But outside of Fed who is there? Any proven commodities at the slams? NONE!!. At least so far

 

[thalivest]

Yeah Federer is no rival to Nadal. Those 5 setters in the Wimbledon and Australian Open finals were snoozers, totally non competitive duels. After all Agassi the amazing rival has taken Sampras to 5 sets in exactly 0 U.S Open or Wimbledon finals.

 

[GameSampras]

Nadal - hands down.

Sampras didn't have to go through a champion of a player with 13 slams to win any of his slams, like Nadal had to deal with in each of his 6 slam victories.

Anything more is pure speculation, as the conditions have changed, over the course of these years. But since you guys are in specualting mood, I'll join the party too ().

If we have to consider Agassi against Nadal (in today's conditions), well there is no way Andre would posses any trouble for Nadal on the clay courts, and on grass Nadal would still own Agassi. On the slow hard courts, I would give the edge to Nadal on each occation they play, and the faster courts, I would give the edge to Agassi. So overall, Nadal would definitely own the head to head, unless Agassi doesn't do consistently well on Clay and Grass (which means that the head to head would look decent but Nadal would still be way ahead in the points department).

Again this is all mere speculation, and nothing can be proven. Federer's GOAT talk started around when he had won his 6th slam, so I am not surprised Nadal has joined this discussion when he just had his .

PS: and one thing for Nadal is on the red stuff he is a super human, the likes of which we have never seen in tennis history. Winning 19 out of the last 21 tournaments he has entered on that surface, thats just phenomenal (also considering RG 08 was one of the most dominating performances in the history of tennis by any champion, I believe.). Heck if it wasn't for Nadal, Federer would have captured 19 slams (on all surfaces), and would be considered the undisputed GOAT by a long margin now

OMG. Sampras had to go through multiple champions. ANd some great ones early on his prime. Nadal has to go through 1 great player usually and the rest pretty average outside of Murray I suppose. A player (Fed) nowadays he has no trouble whooping. Fed is no rival to Nadal anymore. The last 3 out of the 4 slams Fed has been Nadal's whipping boy. And before 08 most of Nadal's wins over Fed came off on clay. Nadals era didnt really begin until 2008. So we dont know what kind of competition he is going to have. The suspected rivals will be Djoker and Murray. Who else is there after these two? There is only 1 slam in between both of them.

To say Nadal has it tougher than Pete did? HOGWASH. He doesnt even have a legit great clay court player to push him at the RG on Bruguera, Muster or Guga's level. Hes got Djokovic and Federer. LOL He doesnt even have to deal with any attacking serve-volleyers today. He plays baseliners for god sakes at Wimbeldon on slow freaking imposter surface otherwise known as Roland Gamebelton.

Pete had to play on all kinds of diversified courts (including carpets) with diversified players. Not the homogenized crap we see today where players are GLUED to the baseline. Sampras had to overcome serve-volleyers (becker, Goran, Edberg etc) and Great grinders (Andre, Bruguera, Corretja, Chang etc). Nadal has to overcome one type of player. The Baseliner. Which is why even with style of game (the grinder) he can win on multiple surfaces today.

Try playing that "grinding stand back behind the baseline 10 feet) mode against Goran, Becker, Edberg and see what happens. nadal would be wearing his you know what for earings on grass and HC getting serve up an attack-acefest

 

[Spider]

Fed is no walk in the park to beat. But for Nadal he usually is.. It isnt a much of a rivalry anymore since its so lopsided. But outside of Fed who is there? Any proven commodities at the slams? NONE!!. At least so far

Like it or not, Fed is Nadal's biggest rival at the slams where it matters. And he is bigger than any of Sampras era players (excluding Sampras). Nadal has beaten Federer even in his prime on surfaces other than clay. He beat him at Miami and Dubai, which are hard courts. So it wasn't just clay during Fed's prime.

And considering the competition on clay that you bring up, Muster was not mentally strong at the slams, if it was, he should have better results over there, than what he did. Guga in his prime was an excellent player, but didn't have the records on clay that Nadal possesses now. So, if we bring, any player from the past and put them in this era (against Nadal), that wouldn't change the results at all, except that those players would be made to look ordinary.

 

[GameSampras]

Like it or not, Fed is Nadal's biggest rival at the slams where it matters. And he is bigger than any of Sampras era players (excluding Sampras). Nadal has beaten Federer even in his prime on surfaces other than clay. He beat him at Miami and Dubai, which are hard courts. So it wasn't just clay during Fed's prime.

And considering the competition on clay that you bring up, Muster was not mentally strong at the slams, if it was, he should have better results over there, than what he did. Guga in his prime was an excellent player, but didn't have the records on clay that Nadal possesses now. So, if we bring, any player from the past and put them in this era (against Nadal), that wouldn't change the results at all, except that those players would be made to look ordinary.

Prime Muster, Courier(possibly), Bruguera, Guga all better than Fed on clay. PERIOD!!. Fed is a good clay court player. But not great IMO. There has been many better. In fact, passed his prime Guga had no problem handing Fed his head on a silver platter at RG in 04.

No disrespect to Nadal, but this one of the weakest clay court fields in recent history. Nadal may have whooped on all the past clay courters from 90s to the 70s, From Borg, to VIlas to Wilander, to Guga. But his draws would have been much tougher at the RG than they are now. Just saying

 

[Spider]

Pete had to play on all kinds of diversified courts (including carpets) with diversified players. Not the homogenized crap we see today where players are GLUED to the baseline. Sampras had to overcome serve-volleyers (becker, Goran, Edberg etc) and Great grinders (Andre, Bruguera, Corretja, Chang etc). Nadal has to overcome one type of player. The Baseliner. Which is why even with style of game (the grinder) he can win on multiple surfaces today.

Lets have it your way then, and if so, Sampras, in today's era would be lucky to win slams, due the the conditions and the kind of tennis he has to overcome to win those. He would no way be anywhere near 14 slams in this era with this competition (Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, Murray ec.).

So, if we consider Nadal playing in those conditions against those players that you bring up, we should also consider Sampras playing in these conditions and the competition that he would have to face to win slams today.

 

[GameSampras]

Lets have it your way then, and if so, Sampras, in today's era would be lucky to win slams, due the the conditions and the kind of tennis he has to overcome to win those. He would no way be anywhere near 14 slams in this era with this competition (Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, Murray ec.).

So, if we consider Nadal playing in those conditions against those players that you bring up, we should also consider Sampras playing in these conditions and the competition that he would have to face to win slams today.

It would probably be more difficult for Sampras to dominate today due to the conditions. But we dont know how Sampras may have altered his game to deal with it. The serve-volleyers may be extinct but thats not to say it wouldnt work today. And Sampras was very solid all around player in his day. Especially his early years. He wasnt just an attacker that he would later become in his later years.

 

[Spider]

It would probably be more difficult for Sampras to dominate today due to the conditions. But we dont know how Sampras may have altered his game to deal with it. The serve-volleyers may be extinct but thats not to say it wouldnt work today. And Sampras was very solid all around player in his day. Especially his early years. He wasnt just an attacker that he would later become in his later years.

Thats exactly my point. This is pure speculation. Who is to say, Nadal wouldn't have altered his game to be more competitive if he played in the Sampras era (against Sampras's competition).

We saw a super aggressive Nadal against Murray, at the Rotterdam final, in the second set. He was blasting winners,that he woundn't have, if he wasn't injured. What I mean is, Nadal knows his baseline game is so solid, in today's era, that doesnt need to change anything, to beat his competition. But if he wasnt able to do that, and was forced to change his game (like in the Rotterdam final), maybe he just would have?

Again like I said everything is speculation and we would never know. The results with your competition is all that matters.

 

[flying24]

Exactly. If Sampras could have adapted his game to todays conditions, there is no telling Nadal wouldnt have been able to do the same for the faster conditions of the 90s. We will never know, but he deserves that benefit of doubt just as much as Sampras does.

 

[GameSampras]

Exactly. If Sampras could have adapted his game to todays conditions, there is no telling Nadal wouldnt have been able to do the same for the faster conditions of the 90s. We will never know, but he deserves that benefit of doubt just as much as Sampras does.

I just cant see Nadal being as successful of a serve-volleyer as Pete would be a baseliner

 

[veroniquem]

Edberg and Becker by the mid 90s were clearly past their prime and losing early rounds of half the slams to nobodies, yet they would bomb Nadal. Agassi wasnt even a top 5 player 70% of the time from 92-98, yet would destroy everyone except Nadal and Federer today. Delusional fool.

Well said. Agassi won his last 5 encounters with Edberg (with a final head to head of 6-3) because he was passing him left and right, it would be the same ordeal, if not worse vs Nadal.
As for Agassi, he met Nadal twice on the pro tour and we all know how that went. Also Agassi in his early twenties was nowhere near as consistent and mentally strong as Nadal who would have been an even bigger obstacle to him than Courier was.

 

[flying24]

I just cant see Nadal being as successful of a serve-volleyer as Pete would be a baseliner

Nadal is good at proving people wrong. How many people, and I admit I was once one of the naysayers, said he cant stay healthy any longer, then he cant stay this dominant on clay every year, then he cant win a slam outside of clay, then he cant win on hard courts, then he cant beat Federer in a big final on hard courts. It seems the more people doubt he cant do something, the more likely he is to do it.

 

[helloworld]

Nadal is good at proving people wrong. How many people, and I admit I was once one of the naysayers, said he cant stay healthy any longer, then he cant stay this dominant on clay every year, then he cant win a slam outside of clay, then he cant win on hard courts, then he cant beat Federer in a big final on hard courts. It seems the more people doubt he cant do something, the more likely he is to do it.

Nadal can do a lot of things, but there's no way in hell he's going to improve his serve to the point of Sampras'. A serve is the big part for an effective serve & volley game. If he's going to be on par with Sampras on serve & volley, then he'd either need to have Sampras' serve or 10 times better volleys than Pete.

 

[saram]

Let's put this thread to rest and wait until the two players are BOTH retired, okay? We have no idea what is around the corner for one of the players in question yet. Threads like this baffle me.

When Rafa retired--put this in the former player section and we can discuss it to death. Geesh, enough comparing retired versus current playing pros STILL on tour in their prime.

 

[flying24]

Nadal can do a lot of things, but there's no way in hell he's going to improve his serve to the point of Sampras'. A serve is the big part for an effective serve & volley game. If he's going to be on par with Sampras on serve & volley, then he'd either need to have Sampras' serve or 10 times better volleys than Pete.

Sure, but by the same token Sampras could never be on the same level as Nadal from the baseline either. I highly doubt Sampras could ever even be on the same level as Federer from the baseline, and Nadal has proven he is on an even higher one than that.

 

[380pistol]

I just cant see Nadal being as successful of a serve-volleyer as Pete would be a baseliner

Affirmative.

Nadal can do a lot of things, but there's no way in hell he's going to improve his serve to the point of Sampras'. A serve is the big part for an effective serve & volley game. If he's going to be on par with Sampras on serve & volley, then he'd either need to have Sampras' serve or 10 times better volleys than Pete.

And the hammer just connected with the nail.

Sure, but by the same token Sampras could never be on the same level as Nadal from the baseline either. I highly doubt Sampras could ever even be on the same level as Federer from the baseline, and Nadal has proven he is on an even higher one than that.

You're missing the point......

Pete better at the net and Rafa is better at the baseline.

But Sampras's ability form the baseline is superior to Nadal's ability to serve and volley without questionSampras would(and did) accomplish more from the baseline than Rafa and Roger have done at the net.




To the question.......

Sampras but it's close. It's true Nadal has had to deal with Federer, and Sampras never had to deal with a player of Pete's calibur. But on grass outside of Federer it's rather thin. Sampras had Becker, Ivanisevic, Agassi and Rafter to contend with. While Nadal is better than any claycourter of the Sampras era, his main obstacle to his 4 (and likely 5th) French crowns will be Federer. That's not on par with Courier, Bruguera, Muster, Agassi, Kafelnikov and Kuerten.

Also Fed's prime is consedered by many as 2004-2007, how many of Nadal's prime years will overlap that 4 year span?? But in Nadal's defense we have to wait and see how players like Djokovic, Murray and ven Tsonga will do in the future to make a more accurate assesment.

 

[iamke55]

Sampras didn't have to deal with anyone who could take a set off Federer, let alone Federer himself and a bunch of guys who have beaten him.

 

[bladepdb]

I'm curious why John McEnroe, Lendl, Connors, Becker, Edberg aren't in this poll. Maybe making it a multi-option poll with tehse players would be a nice take on overall opinions for these forums.