Who is the better player

Better player all time

  • Sampras is better

    Votes: 18 29.5%

  • Nadal is better

    Votes: 37 60.7%

  • Both are on same level

    Votes: 6 9.8%
  • Total voters
    61
H

Henri kingston

Rookie
Total Slams:

Sampras- 14
Nadal- 22

Total Weeks as #1:

Sampras- 286
Nadal- 209 weeks

HUGE difference

Year End #1:

Sampras- 6
Nadal- 5

Time spent at #1 is, and will always be Rafa's shortcoming on his GOAT resume. He won't catch Sampras here.

AO:

Sampras- 2 wins, 1 final
Nadal- 2 win, 3 final

Advantage draw


RG:

Sampras- 1 SF
Nadal- 14 wins

Complete wash here, Sampras' lack of performance on clay is one of the only reasons Rafa even has a shot to come close to Pete's achievements.

Wimbledon:

Sampras- 7 wins
Nadal- 2 wins, 3 finals

5 additional championships for Pete at the most prestigious tennis event in the world.


USO:

Sampras- 5 wins, 3 finals
Nadal- 4 win, 1 final

Not even close here

Year End Masters:

Sampras- 5 wins, 1 final
Nadal- 0 wins, 1 final

Another destruction.

Masters 1000:

Sampras- 11 wins, 8 finals
Nadal- 35 wins, 51 finals

Rafa has this trump card, but how much is it worth?

OVERALL:

Bull is the clay GOAT with solid success on other surfaces.

Sampras beats him handily at 2/4 slams the YE#1 / Weeks at #1 and WTFs
 
Nadal is by far the better player. Competition is something to be considered. And in general, it doesn't matter about surface level dominance and being more "well-rounded" across the slams, the pure slam count is the supreme metric. Most other people agree with this statement.

By the way no one is going to be talking about "who's the next atp finals/masters 1000 winners" when the tennis season is over, it's always "who's going to win the next slams" and always how Sincaraz/Big 3 are going to divide said slams. Slams are supreme.
 
Comparing clay Rafa would be a more meaningful comparison.

Pete's Grand Slams = Rafa's RG
Pete's Masters = Rafa's Monte Carlo

Pete's YEC & #1 vs. Rafa's Rome/Madrid/Hamburg

Not a bad comparison.
 
If someone wants to ding Fed for not having enough competition, let’s not look at Pete’s finals opponents….Rafa has “strength of schedule” over Pete for sure
 
though idk how to define better
rafa won wimbledon twice and had harder opponents stopping him winning more
pete even did not perform well at fo
from all round play, rafa shall be better
 
Henri kingston said:
Pete was more dominant on grass than rafa on clay
Click to expand...

Thats not true, Pete is second on the list of the most dominant pet slams player in their prime ... the 1st is obviously Rafa

Most slams won by a player at a particular slam by 30th birthday

01. Nadal - 9 slams at French Open
02. Sampras - 7 Slams at Wimbledon
03. Borg - 6 Slams at the French Open
04. Federer - 6 Slams at Wimbledon
05. Djokovic - 6 Slams at the Aus Open
06. Borg - 5 Slams at Wimbledon
07. Federer - 5 Slams at the US Opens
.
.
and so on

So Sampras was slightly below Nadal, but by and large Sampras and Nadal are similar players, opposite sides of the same coin, extremely dominant on low bouncing and high bouncing surfaces respectively and struggling on the high bouncing and low bouncing surfaces respectively.
 
Last edited:
4UTRMoutet said:
Nadal is by far the better player. Competition is something to be considered. And in general, it doesn't matter about surface level dominance and being more "well-rounded" across the slams, the pure slam count is the supreme metric. Most other people agree with this statement.

By the way no one is going to be talking about "who's the next atp finals/masters 1000 winners" when the tennis season is over, it's always "who's going to win the next slams" and always how Sincaraz/Big 3 are going to divide said slams. Slams are supreme.
Click to expand...
Clay dominant slams and titles not like pete
 
Razer said:
Thats not true, Pete is second on the list of the most dominant pet slams player in their prime ... the 1st is obviously Rafa

Most slams won by the a player at a particular slam by 30th birthday

01. Nadal - 9 slams at French Open
02. Sampras - 7 Slams at the French Open
03. Borg - 6 Slams at the French Open
04. Federer - 6 Slams at Wimbledons
05. Djokovic - 6 Slams at the Aus Open
06. Borg - 5 Slams at Wimbledon
07. Federer - 5 Slams at the US Opens
.
.
and so on

So Sampras was slightly below Nadal, but by and large Sampras and Nadal are similar players, opposite sides of the same coin, extremely dominant on low bouncing and high bouncing surfaces respectively and struggling on the high bouncing and low bouncing surfaces respectively.
Click to expand...
Grass was way better in 90s competition than nadal era clay lol
 
junkieballer said:
It's closer than people think. Sampras was the best player in 6 years (1993-98), Nadal in 5 years (2008, 2010, 2013, 2017, 2019).
Click to expand...

YE1 yes

I don’t think anyone besides Jim Courier thinks Rafa was the better player in 2017 after going like 0-5 against Fed and winning the same amount of Slams
 
Henri kingston said:
Sampras' lack of performance on clay is one of the only reasons Rafa even has a shot to come close to Pete's achievements.
Click to expand...
That's a funny way to name it, certainly. In fact Rafa's results on clay are literally Pete's whole career already.

Slams: 14-14
Masters: 26-11 for Nadal
All tournaments: 64-63 for Sampras

Henri kingston said:
Sampras beats him handily at 2/4 slams the YE#1 / Weeks at #1 and WTFs
Click to expand...
The big failure in those kind of arguments is not counting HOW someone dominated. If 5-4 at the US Open is "handily", then I wonder if there is a word in any language of the world that describes 14-0 at another Slam.

There is only one thing that balances out versatility and the degree of dominance at a certain venue, and that's total numbers. Yes, sometimes the easiest look at something is the best.
 
ChrisRF said:
That's a funny way to name it, certainly. In fact Rafa's results on clay are literally Pete's whole career already.

Slams: 14-14
Masters: 26-11 for Nadal
All tournaments: 64-63 for Sampras


The big failure in those kind of arguments is not counting HOW someone dominated. If 5-4 at the US Open is "handily", then I wonder if there is a word in any language of the world that describes 14-0 at another Slam.

There is only one thing that balances out versatility and the degree of dominance at a certain venue, and that's total numbers. Yes, sometimes the easiest look at something is the best.
Click to expand...
Nadal os clay dominant in titles like 80%
 
rafa is better of course. so is fed who is on same level with rafa. but it is much bigger gap between nole and them that between them and sampras. and sampras is better than both in no1 stat. rafas no1 stat and his WTF record is his biggest holes in his resume.

no1 kings:

nole (8 and 209+209+10)
some space to show how big distance he made!
sampras (6 and 286)
fed (5 and 310)
connors (5 and 268)
lendl (4 and 270)
rafa (5 and 209)
mcenroe (4 and 170)

rafa is 2nd in slams in OE but he is on 6th place in no1 stat in OE. fed is 3rd in both!
 
Last edited:
4UTRMoutet said:
Nadal is by far the better player. Competition is something to be considered. And in general, it doesn't matter about surface level dominance and being more "well-rounded" across the slams, the pure slam count is the supreme metric. Most other people agree with this statement.

By the way no one is going to be talking about "who's the next atp finals/masters 1000 winners" when the tennis season is over, it's always "who's going to win the next slams" and always how Sincaraz/Big 3 are going to divide said slams. Slams are supreme.
Click to expand...
who will win WTF and especially who will be YE#1 is pretty big talk at the end of the season. YE#1 was more important to 3 last GOATs (nole, fed and sampras). it is at least as important as slam1 and i would go with the 3 of GOATs and say that it is even more important!
 
Rosstour said:
YE1 yes

I don’t think anyone besides Jim Courier thinks Rafa was the better player in 2017 after going like 0-5 against Fed and winning the same amount of Slams
Click to expand...
of course he was better. fed skipped a whole clay season. whole surface. tennis plays on 3 surfaces. was fed better player in his own era, 04-09, when he had miserable 7-13 record vs his main rival? and even 4-6 vs muzza? YE#1 decides best player. as muzza was in 2016 despite having less slams and negative h2h vs nole and catching it in the very last match of the season. even saving MP in the SF (so he was literarily a point away to lose it)!
 
GoatNo1 said:
rafa is better of course. so is fed who is on same level with rafa. but it is much bigger gap between nole and them that between them and sampras. and sampras is better than both in no1 stat. rafas no1 stat and his WTF record is his biggest holes in his resume.

no1 kings:

nole (8 and 209+209+10)
some space to show hove big distance he made!
sampras (6 and 286)
fed (5 and 310)
connors (5 and 268)
lendl (4 and 270)
rafa (5 and 209)
mcenroe (4 and 170)

rafa is 2nd in slams in OE but he is on 6th place in no1 stat in OE. fed is 3rd in both!
Click to expand...
I love nole too but do not mention him because it will cause fam wars when the thrend is about nadal vs Sampras
 
GoatNo1 said:
rafa is better of course. so is fed who is on same level with rafa. but it is much bigger gap between nole and them that between them and sampras. and sampras is better than both in no1 stat. rafas no1 stat and his WTF record is his biggest holes in his resume.

no1 kings:

nole (8 and 209+209+10)
some space to show how big distance he made!
sampras (6 and 286)
fed (5 and 310)
connors (5 and 268)
lendl (4 and 270)
rafa (5 and 209)
mcenroe (4 and 170)

rafa is 2nd in slams in OE but he is on 6th place in no1 stat in OE. fed is 3rd in both!
Click to expand...
IMHO the best player of the year Is the one with the most Slams. Rankings should be decisive only if two are tied.

Djokovic 9 (2011, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2018, 2020, 2021, 2023).
Sampras 6 (1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998)
Nadal 6 (2008, 2010, 2013, 2017, 2019, 2022)
Federer 5 (2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009)
Borg 4 (1975, 1978, 1979, 1980).

Djokovic and Borg were robbed in 2022 and 1977.
 
junkieballer said:
IMHO the best player of the year Is the one with the most Slams. Rankings should be decisive only if two are tied.

Djokovic 9 (2011, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2018, 2020, 2021, 2023).
Sampras 6 (1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998)
Nadal 6 (2008, 2010, 2013, 2017, 2019, 2022)
Federer 5 (2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009)
Borg 4 (1975, 1978, 1979, 1980).

Djokovic and Borg were robbed in 2022 and 1977.
Click to expand...
no it is diskutable but at the end it is ranking that decides it!

i can think that the season that separate ATP and ITF best players is somehow not clear about best player, because 2 biggest tennis organisations goes with different players as in 2013 for exemple (i go more with ATP there because i like more rules and numbers than votes to decide. numbers is objective while votes can be subjective).

and nole was the best in 2022 too but it was politics that influenced the ranking and it should not. W22 points was not count, only with those nole would have more points than rafa and just 180 less than raz. one additional WC to some MM500 making just SF there would make him YE#1. so he was that close despite being deported from AO and banned from USO and 4 HC masters!
 
GoatNo1 said:
no it is diskutable but at the end it is ranking that decides it!

i can think that the season that separate ATP and ITF best players is somehow not clear about best player, because 2 biggest tennis organisations goes with different players as in 2013 for exemple (i go more with ATP there because i like more rules and numbers than votes to decide. numbers is objective while votes can be subjective).

and nole was the best in 2022 too but it was politics that influenced the ranking and it should not. W22 points was not count, only with those nole would have more points than rafa and just 180 less than raz. one additional WC to some MM500 making just SF there would make him YE#1. so he was that close despite being deported from AO and banned from USO and 4 HC masters!
Click to expand...
The slam count should be something like 26-21-20 and the YE#1 count 9-5-5.
 
I’m sorry, is this meant to be a serious thread? I have no interest in weighing in on a comparison between completely different players of completely different eras, but…

75 week difference at number 1 is a HUGE difference, but EIGHT more major titles is not? Their USO finals record and WTF record are not even close, but the massive gaping chasm in their 1000 records is not worth much? :-D The tier 1 titles that make up the majority of the year?

Another work of world class comedy by the objective analysts of GPPD.
 
junkieballer said:
The slam count should be something like 26-21-20 and the YE#1 count 9-5-5.
Click to expand...
yes, most probable! and without all politics, frozen weeks, W points cancelation, bans ect... he would have more than 500 weeks at no1 (22 frozen, probable all of meds weeks and a lot of razs weeks)! and if sinner was treated as other players is, noles no1 (and maybe even slam) count would be even higher! it is very hard to imagine the border of his accomplishments without all politic influence and obstacles that he had.

but going through all those obstacles, holding with his principles, and becoming the GOAT by some pretty big margin anyway, gives his GOAThood another, never seen, dimension!
 
Last edited:
ibbi said:
I’m sorry, is this meant to be a serious thread? I have no interest in weighing in on a comparison between completely different players of completely different eras, but…

75 week difference at number 1 is a HUGE difference, but EIGHT more major titles is not? Their USO finals record and WTF record are not even close, but the massive gaping chasm in their 1000 records is not worth much? :-D The tier 1 titles that make up the majority of the year?

Another work of world class comedy by the objective analysts of GPPD.
Click to expand...
The point is Sampras was more dominant in his era than Nadal was in his.

Sampras had the Slam and weeks at #1 records for 10 years while Nadal had the Slam record for 1 year with the help of politics and never had the weeks at #1 record.
 
junkieballer said:
The point is Sampras was more dominant in his era than Nadal was in his.

Sampras had the Slam and weeks at #1 records for 10 years while Nadal had the Slam record for 1 year with the help of politics and never had the weeks at #1 record.
Click to expand...
rafa was far away of both YE#1 and weeks records! he, contrary to sampras, was never the GOAT. but at the end he has accomplished more than sampras anyway. but, as i said, it is much closer between they than between nole and rafa, despite 8 slams!
 
Longest time with the Open Era Slam record:

1) Borg 21 years (1978-1999)
2) Federer 13 years (2009-2022)
3) Sampras 10 years (1999-2009)
4) Djokovic at least 7 years (2023-2030+)
5) Nadal 1 year (2022-23)

Longest time with the weeks at ATP #1 record:

1) Connors 15 years (1975-90)
2) Sampras 13 years (1999-2012)
3) Djokovic at least 10 years (2021-2031+)
4) Lendl 9 years (1990-99)
/ Federer 9 years (2012-21)
Nadal 0

10-1 and 13-0
 
If forced to choose, on balance Nadal, but it's not as clear cut as 22 vs 14 slams would suggest.

Obviously Sampras leads in YE No.1 and weeks at No.1 tally, and trails in slams, but he beat the record of his era, Roy Emerson's 12 major titles, it's incredibly easy to make the case he could have won more slams if the target he was chasing was higher. The surfaces were less homogenized in Sampras's era as well, great players adapt and it's again easy to argue that in a more homogenized surface era he would have adapted to perform better across all the slams, even in his era he was no slouch on clay.

Sampras also played at a time when sports science hadn't yet caught up with the evolving technology in tennis, so many players retired earlier and were less healthy from their late 20s. If Sampras had access to the sports science Nadal had then it's easy to imagine he would have racked up more slam titles in the late 90s and early 2000s, perhaps even into the mid-2000s.

All of which demonstrates why it's wrong to directly compare across eras and it's better to focus on greatest players of each era rather than greatest of all time. Laver 'only' won 11 slams, but he won the true grand slam twice, either side of missing 21 slams in a row when he went pro - how can he ever be ruled out of the greatest of all time argument based on numbers given that huge asterisk.
 
GoatNo1 said:
yes, most probable! and without all politics, frozen weeks, W points cancelation, bans ect... he would have more than 500 weeks at no1 (22 frozen, probable all of meds weeks and a lot of razs weeks)! and if sinner was treated as other players is, noles no1 (and maybe even slam) count would be even higher! it is very hard to imagine the border of his accomplishments without all politic influence and obstacles that he had.

but going through all those obstacles, holding with his principles, and becoming the GOAT by some pretty big margin anyway, gives his GOAThood another, never seen, dimension!
Click to expand...
Actually that covid period hurt Nadal the most. It just killed his body and rythm. He had a decent chance of reaching #1 somewhere in the 2020 clay season but it wasn't meant to be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DSH
BorgTheGOAT said:
Not really. Especially not if you talk about clay and grass and not FO and Wimbledon. Pete won next to nothing on grass outside Wimblie, Nadal dominated everything on clay.
Click to expand...
As to supremacy on favorite surface:
Sampras < Federer < Nadal
 
Bardland said:
Obviously Sampras leads in YE No.1 and weeks at No.1 tally, and trails in slams, but he beat the record of his era, Roy Emerson's 12 major titles, it's incredibly easy to make the case he could have won more slams if the target he was chasing was higher.
Click to expand...
Not really. First Sampras never came close to winning the FO, despite ample motivation (he understood how the performance gap would affect his career). That already puts him in a Borg-like "only three slams per year" hole.

Second, Pete was somewhat lucky to finish with 14 slams rather than 13. The 2002 USO was clearly a blip: a last burst of excellence from Sampras coupled with the good fortune of encountering Agassi in pigeon mode in the final. Before that tournament, Sampras hadn't won anything since Wimbledon 2000 -- 26 months!

Pete squeezed all the available juice from his era.
Bardland said:
Sampras also played at a time when sports science hadn't yet caught up with the evolving technology in tennis, so many players retired earlier and were less healthy from their late 20s.
Click to expand...
This is a completely different type of speculation. It's not merely, "Could Sampras have extended or improved the career that he had?" Rather, it's now, "Could Sampras have had a superior career if he had existed in a later historical era?"
 
junkieballer said:
The point is Sampras was more dominant in his era than Nadal was in his.

Sampras had the Slam and weeks at #1 records for 10 years while Nadal had the Slam record for 1 year with the help of politics and never had the weeks at #1 record.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, that's not a point made in the OP. It was a comparison between two players where the large gaps one way are meaningful, and the large gaps the other way are not.

Sampras was more dominant in his era, no doubt, and if you think that (which is not to say that there aren't other more reasonable factors) makes him a better player then, well, that's the simplistic argument I would expect from the age of bean counters. Get your calculators out, fellas.
 
Bardland said:
If forced to choose, on balance Nadal, but it's not as clear cut as 22 vs 14 slams would suggest.

Obviously Sampras leads in YE No.1 and weeks at No.1 tally, and trails in slams, but he beat the record of his era, Roy Emerson's 12 major titles, it's incredibly easy to make the case he could have won more slams if the target he was chasing was higher. The surfaces were less homogenized in Sampras's era as well, great players adapt and it's again easy to argue that in a more homogenized surface era he would have adapted to perform better across all the slams, even in his era he was no slouch on clay.

Sampras also played at a time when sports science hadn't yet caught up with the evolving technology in tennis, so many players retired earlier and were less healthy from their late 20s. If Sampras had access to the sports science Nadal had then it's easy to imagine he would have racked up more slam titles in the late 90s and early 2000s, perhaps even into the mid-2000s.

All of which demonstrates why it's wrong to directly compare across eras and it's better to focus on greatest players of each era rather than greatest of all time. Laver 'only' won 11 slams, but he won the true grand slam twice, either side of missing 21 slams in a row when he went pro - how can he ever be ruled out of the greatest of all time argument based on numbers given that huge asterisk.
Click to expand...

Good post

Sampras lived in USA, this made travelling harder between tournaments as one older, Big 3 live in Europe and it is easier to travel + recover as one grows older.... that could also be a point in Sampras's favour.
 
Nadal is unique in that he can play an ATG at his peak on a surface incredibly tough. He beat prime Fed at Wimbledon in 2008. He beat prime Fed at the 2009 AO. He beat prime Djoker at 2010 USO and he beat peak Djoker at the 2013 USO. And he pushed peak Djoker to a nail-biting 5 sets at the AO. He had the lead in that match, but couldn’t close it out.

Here’s a stat that makes me cringe as a Fed fan. Nadal won only 2 fewer Masters events on clay(26) than Federer won on all surfaces(28). Sampras(11) and Agassi(17) combined to win only 2 more Masters than Nadal did on clay alone. Nobody is close to what Nadal did on clay. So I find it hilarious when people try to subtract out a player’s favorite slam when comparing Nadal to any other player. Nadal is obviously handicapped way more than anybody else when doing this

Let’s go ahead and subtract their best surfaces from their resumes anyway. We still get Nadal leading Sampras in slams 8-7. And they are tied 10-10 at Masters events. Of course, Sampras leads the WTF 5-0. So when excluding their best surfaces, I’d give Sampras a slight edge.

And lastly, it took me a long time to admit this. I always said that Federer had it the toughest, since he had to decline against 2 ATG players that were 5-6 years younger than he. But at least Fed had some serious daylight from 2001-2004. It is Nadal that had it the toughest. From day 1 of being a slam contender(2005), Nadal had an ATG player in his prime in his way. Once Fed fell out of his prime in 2010, then he had Djoker to deal with. Nadal had it much tougher than Sampras did, regarding the competition. It’s not even close. To Sampras credit, he had much more polarized courts to play on. But he also had Agassi wreck his prime for 2 years by doing drugs(1 year of drug use+ 1 year to recover).

And lastly, once we start trashing Nadal, then we seriously have to look at how we rank Federer and Djoker vs other ATG players. I don’t have Nadal as the best of the Big 3. But he has some decent arguments in his favor.

My pecking order goes something like this:

Laver, Djoker, Federer, Nadal, Borg, Sampras.

I see a strong case for Nadal over Fed and Sampras over Borg. Nadal vs Fed has my head spinning. But I don’t do ties. So I will admit that I’m picking my fav here between those two. As for Nadal vs Sampras, it’s Nadal. It’s not as big of a gap as people think it is. But it’s definitely a gap.
 
One thing that stands out is for all his W dominance, Sampras's unbeaten run on grass is puny -- especially compared with Nadal and his clay reign between 05 and 07.

Nadal was far better on hard and grass than Sampras was on clay, Nadal was more or less better on clay than Sampras was on grass and hard.

There defo are ways to relativize it in anyone's favor, but it feels harder for me not to say Nadal.
 
I’ve spent several years praising Fed and a few years giving Djoker his due credit. It’s now time to give Nadal his well-deserved praise.

Nadal’s 81 match winning streak on clay is the most absurd record of them all. Nobody comes close to that one(Mac won 66 straight on carpet, followed by Federer’s 65 straight on grass). Nadal snapped Fed’s record 56 match winning streak on hard court by beating peak Fed in the final of Dubai in 2006. Federer was in form and at his best on a fast hard court. Nadal snapped prime-Fed’s 65 match winning streak on grass in that classic 2008 Wimbledon final. That 2008 match had a one hour show made in its honor and is called by many experts the greatest March of all time.

Nadal wasn’t he healthiest or most consistent guy. But honestly, when he was on, he was the scariest guy that I ever remember seeing since the days of Bjorn Borg. He could skate through an entire slam event while dropping fewer than 40 games. That is just sick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
  • Poll Poll
How has Nadal passed Sampras?
6 7 8
Replies
379
Views
22K
Crazy Finn
C
KingKyrgios
  • Poll Poll
How has Nadal passed Sampras?
11 12 13
Replies
644
Views
50K
Mustard
Mustard
B
Rank the 4 time slam winners in Open Era - men
Replies
39
Views
2K
Dan Lobb
D
The_Mental_Giant
Nadal career is more Impressive than sampras
2
Replies
62
Views
8K
Rosewall
R
Mr. Friscus
1999: The Year Agassi was 0-4 vs Sampras in Finals/Semifinals but had a better year than him
2
Replies
64
Views
3K
Mr. Friscus
Mr. Friscus
Back
Top