Who was more dominant? Rafa at French Open or Sampras at Wimbledon?

[Zain786]

Both dominated during their peak/prime years and ruled the field for a long time. Both set open era records for titles won and both are undefeated in finals. But who dominated the slam more, was it Rafa or Pistol?

Rafa at French Open -

1) Titles - 9
2) Finals - 9
3) W/L in Finals - 9-0
4) Match Win % - 97.22%

Pete at Wimbledon

1) Titles - 7
2) Finals - 7
3) W/L in Finals - 7-0
4) Match Win % - 90%

 

[NatF]

Nadal.

 

[AustinTx24]

Rafa is love, Rafa is life.

 

[Bukmeikara]

Why is this even a question?!

 

[RF-18]

Well you can see it on the stats.

 

[VamosBamos987]

Murray at Australia

 

[RF-18]

Lol, said by a Nadal hater.

What is wrong with what I said. It's obvious that Nadal was more dominant if you look at it factually.

 

[RF-18]

I mean it's strange to read something like that from somebody who thinks Federer was prime in 2015.

I really do not know what you are talking about and how you got Federer prime thing and ''nadal'' hate mixed up out of my post. Unreal.

 

[TheMaestro1990]

Compare Nadal at RG to any (male) player in tennis history in a specific Grand Slam, and Nadal would come out on top every time.

 

[tennisaddict]

<90's clay mode >

Rafa faced his bunnies Fed and Djok in a poor clay era.

Petros faced giants like Agassi, Ivanisevic, Krajicek and a slew of great grass players.

</90's clay mode >

 

[VamosBamos987]

Sampras goat.

















-60s weed

 

[roger presley]

<90's clay mode >

Rafa faced his bunnies Fed and Djok in a poor clay era.

Petros faced giants like Agassi, Ivanisevic, Krajicek and a slew of great grass players.

</90's clay mode >

Agree.

 

[Bukmeikara]

Compare Nadal at RG to any (male) player in tennis history in a specific Grand Slam, and Nadal would come out on top every time.

Djokovic is two Australian's away from making a case

 

[Tennisanity]

Only a fool would say Sampras. Cue 90's clay!

 

[KINGROGER]

Nadal for sure. Most dominant player at any GS.

Federer would've been the same at Wimbledon, had they not slowed it down so the pushers could win it

 

[PeterHo]

Nads.

Not even close.

 

[nadalfan2013]

3 fools so far.

4 if you count the OP.

 

[Prabhanjan]

3 fools so far.

4 if you count the OP.

20+ if you add the responders

 

[JoelSandwich]

Nadal, but good luck beating either of them.

 

[ultradr]

is this a trick question?

of course it is nadal on clay. He is the most dominant player on clay, and longest consecutive slam winning years in entire human history !

 

[mxmx]

Could one not argue that it is harder to win wimbledon back then than it is to win the french in recent years?

 

[Druss]

Who are the 4 idiots who voted Sampras?

 

[Tshooter]

Ask George Bastl.

VAMOS RAFA !

 

[S'in-net]

Sampras reached Renshaw at 7
Nadal reached Decugis at 8, then went past Decugis, into unknown uncharted territory, on his own

You can win Wimbledon with a one very big weapon (serve) and an incomplete game

You can fail to win Roland Garros, with one very big weapon (serve), AND a complete game...

 

[NatF]

Sampras reached Renshaw at 7
Nadal reached Decugis at 8, then went past Decugis, into unknown uncharted territory, on his own

You can win Wimbledon with a one very big weapon (serve) and an incomplete game

You can fail to win Roland Garros, with one very big weapon (serve), AND a complete game...

This complete bollocks

Guys like Karlovic have what 1-2 QF's at Wimbledon.

 

[Nappa]

Not even close. Lol

 

[SonnyT]

Sampras doesn't own the most WB victories! Nadal outdistances the most slam victories at any venue by 4!

 

[The Blond Blur]

I’m normally against bumping years old dead threads. But since it’s already been bumped and even back in 2016 it was obvious who was ahead I’ll just say this:

Lol:

 

[JasonZ]

This complete bollocks

Guys like Karlovic have what 1-2 QF's at Wimbledon.

well, incomplete game can mean ivanisevic level or karlovic level, thats a huge difference.

 

[Pheasant]

How can have this even been a question in 2016? Even when Nadal "only" had 9 titles, he was still 50% ahead of #2 Borg in FO titles. However, Sampras was 0% ahead of Federer in Wimbledon titles. This should end the discussion.

Let's look at Sampras vs Federer(through age-31 seasons) at Wimbledon. Similarly, let's look at Borg vs Nadal through his 2016 season; the season in question.

Player	Titles	record	record vs top-10	most consecutive titles won
Sampras	7	63-7, .690	10-1, .909	4
Federer(through age-31 season, Sampras' last year)	7	66-7, .904	12-2, .857	5
Nadal	9	72-2, .973	19-1, .950	5
Borg	6	49-2, .961	8-0, 1.000	4

 

[DSH]

Both dominated during their peak/prime years and ruled the field for a long time. Both set open era records for titles won and both are undefeated in finals. But who dominated the slam more, was it Rafa or Pistol?

Rafa at French Open -

1) Titles - 9
2) Finals - 9
3) W/L in Finals - 9-0
4) Match Win % - 97.22%

Pete at Wimbledon

1) Titles - 7
2) Finals - 7
3) W/L in Finals - 7-0
4) Match Win % - 90%

Sampras won 7 Wimbledon titles in a period of 8 seasons, which is extraordinary, but Nadal won 9 Roland Garros titles in a period of 10 seasons, which is extraterrestrial.
In the end, in the best Grand Slam of both, the Spanish left-hander ended up doubling Pistol Pete's figure.

 

[velvetsledgehammer]

Nadal accomplishments at FO the greatest achievement ever in all sports to me. Sampras at Wimbledon certainly not in that conversation.

 

[RS]

Murray at Australia

Loses to AO 2020 Thiem confirmed.