Who was the Strongest Male Player in his 20s ??? (Rivals, playing conditions all considered..)

[Razer]

As we now know that Djokovic is the Strongest 30+ Player ever, it is no longer a debate.

What about the 20s ? Who was the Strongest ever in his 20s? (Take into account rivals, playing conditions, challenges......everything)

Career Stats of players in their 20s

Sampras in his 20s- Played 765 matches (81.05% won) / 20,169 Games played (57.03% won) - Finals Win% = 74.03% (75.00% in slams) - 286 weeks at 1 (6 year end 1s)
Federer in his 20s - Played 816 matches (85.29% won) / 20,670 Games played (59.23% won) - Finals Win% = 70.97% (69.57% in slams) - 285 weeks at 1 (5 year end 1s)
Nadal in his 20s - Played 770 matches (83.64% won) / 18,372 Games played (59.67% won) - Finals Win% = 63.85% (68.42% in slams) - 141 weeks at 1 (3 year end 1s)
Djokovic in his 20s - Played 799 matches (85.11% won) / 19,628 Games played (60.04% won) - Finals Win% = 68.9% (57.14% in slams) - 223 weeks at 1 (4 year end 1s)


Titles

01. Sampras's 20s - 57 Titles Won
Rivals : Muster 35, Agassi 35, Chang 30, Kafelnikov 23, Ivaisevic 20, Becker 19, Courier 19, Enqvist 18, Rios 17, Krajicek 16, Kuerten 16, Coretja 15, Stich 14, Berasategui 14, Ferreria 14, Rosset 13, Bruguera 12, Norman 12, Medvedev 11, Costa 11, Gustaffson 11, Rafter 11, Edberg 10, Rusesdki 10

02. Federer's 20s - 66 Titles Won
Rivals : Nadal 46, Djokovic 28, Roddick 27, Davydenko 21, Hewitt 18, Murray 13, Moya 13, Agassi 11, Nalbandian 11, Ferrer 11, JCF 11, Blake 10, Gonzales 10, Ljubicic 10, Almagrao 10, Soderling 10

03. Nadal's 20s - 53 Titles Won
Rivals : Djokovic 65, Federer 51, Murray 35, Ferrer 25, Delp 18, Davydenko 15, Cilic 14, Wawrinka 14, Roddick 12, Simon 12, Tsonga 12, Gasquet 12, Almagro 12, Nishikori 11, Isner 10, Berdych 10

04. Djokovic's 20s - 63 Titles won
Rivals : Nadal 51, Federer 43, Murray 43, Ferrer 23, DelP 19, Cilic 17, Wawrinka 15, Tsonga 15, Davydenko 11, Simon 11, Nishikori 11, Almagro 11, Roddick 10, Isner 10, Berdych 10, Gasquet 10


Grand Slam Titles

Sampras's 20s - 12 Slams Won
Rivals : Agassi 7, Courier 3, Kuerten 3, Bruguera 2, Rafter 2 , Kafelkikov 2, Edberg 1, Muster 1, Becker 1, Krajicek 1, Ivanisevic 1 , Moya 1, Hewitt 1, Safin 1, Korda 1

Federer's 20s - 16 Slams Won
Rivals : Nadal - 10, Djokovic 4, Hewitt 1, Roddick 1, Safin 1, JCF 1, Agassi 1, Sampras 1, DelPo 1, Gaudio 1, Johansson 1, Costa 1

Nadal's 20s - 13 Slams Won
Rivals : Djokovic - 12, Federer 10, Murray 2, Wawrinka 2, DelPo 1, Cilic 1

Djokovic's 20s - 12 Slams Won
Rivals : Nadal 12, Federer 7, Murray 3, Wawrinka 3, Delpo 1, Cilic 1

 

[NatF]

Federer.

 

[RS]

Nadal and Djokovic having 3 rivals with 35 or more

 

[Kralingen]

Federer clearly.

Teens is Borg. Early 20s, say 20-23, is Nadal. Mid 20s is Federer. Late 20s is Sampras or Djokovic. Early-mid 30s is Djokovic. Late 30s is Federer at the moment but Djok can surpass him.

 

[nolefam_2024]

I think the competition is only between Federer and Djokovic.

Sampras has lower win% and won less titles.

Federer argument based on stats. Djokovic argument based on competition.

Nadal too injured to be included. Longevity matters to me.

 

[Razer]

Federer clearly.

Teens is Borg. Early 20s, say 20-23, is Nadal. Mid 20s is Federer. Late 20s is Sampras or Djokovic. Early-mid 30s is Djokovic. Late 30s is Federer at the moment but Djok can surpass him.

I think the competition is only between Federer and Djokovic.

Sampras has lower win% and won less titles.

Federer argument based on stats. Djokovic argument based on competition.

Nadal too injured to be included. Longevity matters to me.

Federer leads in numbers but Sampras & Djokovic have had significantly stronger competition. In Roger's 20s almost 70% of Nadal's titles (32 out of 46) are on Clay, so this means Roger's closest competitors on his fav courts were you know who, look at their numbers.

 

[accidental]

The Nadal

 

[Rosstour]

Federer's numbers seem to be the best, so it can't be him.

 

[nolefam_2024]

The Nadal

Djokovic won more number 1 weeks, more titles during Nadal's 20s. It can not be nadal.

 

[NoleFam]

Federer clearly.

Teens is Borg. Early 20s, say 20-23, is Nadal. Mid 20s is Federer. Late 20s is Sampras or Djokovic. Early-mid 30s is Djokovic. Late 30s is Federer at the moment but Djok can surpass him.

Teens is probably Becker. He was a double Wimbledon champ before he turned 19 and was younger than Borg. Early 20s would be Borg. 6 Slams and 4 time Wimbledon champ from 20-23. Mid 20s was definitely Federer though.

 

[Waves]

Excellent thread OP. I agree Fed is there, but a case can be made for Borg I believe. Nolefam makes great points above. No argument.

I think Novak will easily surpass Fed in his 30’s, even late 30’s, unless he falls off the proverbial cliff soon…not happening at the moment though.

 

[Djokodalerer31]

Federer -> Djokovic -> Sampras -> Nadal ...simple!

 

[Federev]

Federerererererererer

 

[DSH]

Federer clearly.

Teens is Borg. Early 20s, say 20-23, is Nadal. Mid 20s is Federer. Late 20s is Sampras or Djokovic. Early-mid 30s is Djokovic. Late 30s is Federer at the moment but Djok can surpass him.

Not even close!
Ken "Muscles" Rosewall won a couple of WCT editions (one of the great tournaments at that time) when he was over 37 years old, in addition, he reached two Grand Slam finals months before turning 40.
That makes him, indisputably, the tennis player with the greatest longevity of the Open Era.

 

[Underdog]

Roger is the best accomplished, Rafael had it tougher.
Pick your poison.
I think Federer is probably the right answer, but Nadal at 13 Slams with his 20s overlapping with both other Big 3’s is quite something.

 

[Biotic]

Fraud's 20's coincided with the laughable Srichaphan era so he's obviously out of the conversation, Dull was the strongest on clay only, making a cameo once in a while on other surfaces in the most opportune moments + omnipresent indoor suckage disqualifies him, Djoko completely wasted his early 20s + lost a few big matches he shouldn't have later.

The answer is clearly PETE.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Roger is the best accomplished, Rafael had it tougher.
Pick your poison.
I think Federer is probably the right answer, but Nadal at 13 Slams with his 20s overlapping with both other Big 3’s is quite something.

Periodt.

 

[Razer]

Fraud's 20's coincided with the laughable Srichaphan era so he's obviously out of the conversation, Dull was the strongest on clay only, making a cameo once in a while on other surfaces in the most opportune moments + omnipresent indoor suckage disqualifies him, Djoko completely wasted his early 20s + lost a few big matches he shouldn't have later.

The answer is clearly PETE.

Indeed, thats why I mentioned consider rivals & playing conditions but nobody considered that.

After his loss to Edberg in a Slam Final..... Sampras won 12 out of 13 finals and broke Emerson's record...... 92.3% win record in Finals.... That is insane Dominance at the highest level....

 

[Neptune]

What about the 20s ? Who was the Strongest ever in his 20s? (Take into account rivals, playing conditions, challenges......everything)

Assessment quality is too bad.

 

[Neptune]

Have done sufficient research.
Achievement/points: Nole > Fed > Nadal > Pete
Competition toughness: Nole > Nadal > Fed > Pete

 

[ChaelAZ]

I'd say Federer or Nadal, depending on if you focus on early 20's of later 20's more.

 

[Sport]

Federer -> Djokovic -> Sampras -> Nadal ...simple!

Nadal won more Slams and Olympic Golds in his 20s than Sampras and Djokovic, not to mention that Nadal also led the H2H in Slams over Djokovic at Slams (including 2-1 at the US Open). Where did you leave your usual objectivity? Since when 12 > 13?

Plus, Nadal also achieved the Calendar Grand Slam in his 20s, while Sampras never won Roland Garros, proving Nadal was a more complete player than Sampras at the Slam level (where it matters the most). Agassi also won the Olympics in 1996, and Sampras participated at the 1992 Olympics. The Olympics gradually started to become more relevant for tennis in the 1990s (obviously not so important as nowadays, but they weren't irrelevant nonetheless).

 

[Djokovic_is_the_best#1]

This one is Federer! Nadal is close though and has a good argument too.

 

[Djokodalerer31]

Nadal won more Slams and Olympic Golds in his 20s than Sampras and Djokovic, not to mention that Nadal also led the H2H in Slams over Djokovic at Slams (including 2-1 at the US Open). Where did you leave your usual objectivity? Since when 12 > 13?

Plus, Nadal also achieved the Calendar Grand Slam in his 20s, while Sampras never won Roland Garros, proving Nadal was a more complete player than Sampras at the Slam level (where it matters the most). Agassi also won the Olympics in 1996, and Sampras participated at the 1992 Olympics. The Olympics gradually started to become more relevant for tennis in the 1990s (obviously not so important as nowadays, but they weren't irrelevant nonetheless).

Nadal only has extra slam and olympic gold as an argument, which give him only marginal lead...Djokovic has the rest, including ranking records, match records, title records etc, plus he is the one to turn their h2h completely around in his 20's...case closed!

 

[Sport]

Federer clearly.

Teens is Borg. Early 20s, say 20-23, is Nadal. Mid 20s is Federer. Late 20s is Sampras or Djokovic. Early-mid 30s is Djokovic. Late 30s is Federer at the moment but Djok can surpass him.

You sure Federer in his late 30s was stronger than Nadal and Djokovic at that age? Federer aged 36 has less Slams than same-age Djokovic and same number of Slams as 36 years old Nadal.

36 years old Djokovic: 2 Slams.
36 years old Nadal: 1 Slam.
36 years old Federer: 1 Slam.

Also, you sure teenager Borg was better than teenager Sampras (won the 1990 USO with one of the toughest draws of all time) or teenager Nadal (beat #1 Roger several times and won the first RG he participated at)?

 

[Sport]

Nadal only has extra slam and olympic gold as an argument, which give him only marginal lead...Djokovic has the rest, including ranking records, match records, title records etc, plus he is the one to turn their h2h completely around in his 20's...case closed!

Not the H2H in Slams though.

H2H in Slams > Overall H2H.
Number of Grand Slams > Number of overall titles.

Grand Slam achievements > achievements outside Grand Slams. Otherwise, you would be displaykng a double standard.

 

[Kralingen]

You sure Federer in his late 30s was stronger than Nadal and Djokovic at that age? Federer aged 36 has less Slams than same-age Djokovic and same number of Slams as 36 years old Nadal.

36 years old Djokovic: 2 Slams.
36 years old Nadal: 1 Slam.
36 years old Federer: 1 Slam.

Also, you sure teenager Borg was better than teenager Sampras (won the 1990 USO with one of the toughest draws of all time) or teenager Nadal (beat #1 Roger several times and won the first RG he participated at)?

Yes.

 

[Neptune]

This one is Federer! Nadal is close though and has a good argument too.

Are you sure? I bet you did not do research.

 

[Djokovic_is_the_best#1]

Are you sure? I bet you did not do research.

For the 20s I give it to Fed. He got 16 slams that period and other records too. Djokodal aren’t far away though.

 

[Neptune]

For the 20s I give it to Fed. He got 16 slams that period and other records too. Djokodal aren’t far away though.

So only slam count? then this year Nole is far far ahead of Alc? what's up with the year end #1 race?

 

[buscemi]

Teens is probably Becker. He was a double Wimbledon champ before he turned 19 and was younger than Borg. Early 20s would be Borg. 6 Slams and 4 time Wimbledon champ from 20-23. Mid 20s was definitely Federer though.

Yeah, Becker is the clear #1 teen here with 2 Wimbledons, 12 total titles, and 6 other finals.

Most of his 12 titles were big, too: 2 Wimbledons, Indian Wells, the Canadian Open, Cincinnati, Bercy, and Queen's Club x2. He also had 2 finals at WTF and another one at the WCT Finals.

Second place is probably Wilander w/2 Majors (1982 French Open & 1983 Australian Open) and either 8 or 9 total titles (Cincinnati 1984 started when he was 19 & ended when he was 20).

 

[Razer]

I feel it should be Sampras > Federer > Djokovic > Nadal

01. Sampras 12 GS finals won out 13 until he broke emerson's record..... 286 weeks/6 year end 1 .... 74% win record in finals ... Strong competition throughout his 20s from start to end
02. Federer more slams and titles but had weaker competition, yet trails in weeks/years at 1 .... 70% record in finals
03. Djokovic .... Same slams as Sampras and more big titles, had similar competition to Pete as well but lost some big matches too
04. Nadal .... the worst of these 4 players.... only 141 weeks at 1..... rank 2 behind others.....

 

[Neptune]

01. Sampras 12 GS finals won out 13

So with your logic, for 20 GS runs:
10 titles W 10 early exit > 10W 1Runner Up 9 EE > ... > 10W 10RU ?

 

[Neptune]

Federer argument based on stats. Djokovic argument based on competition.

not bad eye test, 50% correct 50% wrong.

 

[Underdog]

I feel it should be Sampras > Federer > Djokovic > Nadal

01. Sampras 12 GS finals won out 13 until he broke emerson's record..... 286 weeks/6 year end 1 .... 74% win record in finals ... Strong competition throughout his 20s from start to end
02. Federer more slams and titles but had weaker competition, yet trails in weeks/years at 1 .... 70% record in finals
03. Djokovic .... Same slams as Sampras and more big titles, had similar competition to Pete as well but lost some big matches too
04. Nadal .... the worst of these 4 players.... only 141 weeks at 1..... rank 2 behind others.....

You could’ve written that Nadal actually won 13 Slams out of 19 finals played, including a CGS, whilst having a boatload of long injuries (2009, 2012, 2014), the actual hardest competition in prime Federer followed by prime Djokovic, Murray and Wawrinka, a respectable 3 YE#1, won quite a few epics as well.
Instead, you chose to write a single stat where he trails his rivals. That’s bias.
It’s Federer > Nadal > Djokovic > Sampras.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Yeah, Becker is the clear #1 teen here with 2 Wimbledons, 12 total titles, and 6 other finals.

Most of his 12 titles were big, too: 2 Wimbledons, Indian Wells, the Canadian Open, Cincinnati, Bercy, and Queen's Club x2. He also had 2 finals at WTF and another one at the WCT Finals.

Second place is probably Wilander w/2 Majors (1982 French Open & 1983 Australian Open) and either 8 or 9 total titles (Cincinnati 1984 started when he was 19 & ended when he was 20).

Borg had 17 titles as a teen including two slams and the WCT finals win in 1976. Had two additional finals at the WCT finals and one at the YEC. He won Rome in 74 and Boston in both 74 and 75 as well as the Davis Cup. He is at the very least more accomplished than Wilander and arguably even than Becker (even though I would likely still put Becker ahead because Wimbledon was still more important than the FO back then, but it is definitely not “clearly”).

 

[Neptune]

By 20th birthday:
Borg=Becker>Nadal>Wilander=Alcaraz

 

[Silentchimera]

Nadal won more Slams and Olympic Golds in his 20s than Sampras and Djokovic, not to mention that Nadal also led the H2H in Slams over Djokovic at Slams (including 2-1 at the US Open). Where did you leave your usual objectivity? Since when 12 > 13?

Plus, Nadal also achieved the Calendar Grand Slam in his 20s, while Sampras never won Roland Garros, proving Nadal was a more complete player than Sampras at the Slam level (where it matters the most). Agassi also won the Olympics in 1996, and Sampras participated at the 1992 Olympics. The Olympics gradually started to become more relevant for tennis in the 1990s (obviously not so important as nowadays, but they weren't irrelevant nonetheless).

It sure is entertaining to watch people argue statistics are everything in tennis but only when it suits.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

By 20th birthday:
Borg=Becker>Nadal>Wilander=Alcaraz

I can also see Becker and Borg as Co-No.1 here. Borg 5 more titles, Becker with slightly better slam success (apart from his 2 Wimblies he had 2 more semis and one more quarter, while Borg had one more semi and one more quarter and in addition, Borg’s FOs had Bo3 in the first two rounds).

As for quality of their tourneys: Becker with 2 Queens, Cinci, IW, Bercy, Canadian Open, Borg with WCT finals, 2 Bostons, Rome so one could say a wash.

Gun to my head I would lean to Becker, but as close as it can get.

 

[Neptune]

Gun to my head I would lean to Becker, but as close as it can get.

True, Becker slightly ahead before 20 Bday, Borg slightly ahead after, cross right around Bday, interesting.

 

[Razer]

+You could’ve written that Nadal actually won 13 Slams out of 19 finals played, including a CGS, whilst having a boatload of long injuries (2009, 2012, 2014), the actual hardest competition in prime Federer followed by prime Djokovic, Murray and Wawrinka, a respectable 3 YE#1, won quite a few epics as well.
Instead, you chose to write a single stat where he trails his rivals. That’s bias.
It’s Federer > Nadal > Djokovic > Sampras.

Post is about strongest player who played strongest rivals and dominated so it is not just about slams, hence in this Nadal is nowhere in picture since he dominated the least. He got dominated by Djokovic in his own 20s, Novak won more titles in Nadal's 20s, LOL, and you are saying Nadal dominated ? For what? CGS is not an indicator of anyone being 1 otherwise Agassi would be rated ahead, I don't rate CGS high as the conditions are homogenous, grass is not as fast as it should be, Federer himself during his retirement indicated that now players in this time can have records like won all masters twice, all slams twice, this kind of records were much harder in the past, FED said that.

Its is either Federer>Sampras>Djokovic>Nadal OR Sampras>Federer>Djokovic>Nadal, in any combination but Nadal remains the worst of the 4. The other 3 guys emerged on top in their 20s but Nadal remains rank 2 in his own time. That is the proof of he being 4th in the comparison. 3 year end 1s & 141 weeks only at 1 and you are telling me he is not 4th ? How ? He faced strong competition but so did Pete and Nole, they emerged at 1 in their times, Nadal didn't.

 

[NoleFam]

Yeah, Becker is the clear #1 teen here with 2 Wimbledons, 12 total titles, and 6 other finals.

Most of his 12 titles were big, too: 2 Wimbledons, Indian Wells, the Canadian Open, Cincinnati, Bercy, and Queen's Club x2. He also had 2 finals at WTF and another one at the WCT Finals.

Second place is probably Wilander w/2 Majors (1982 French Open & 1983 Australian Open) and either 8 or 9 total titles (Cincinnati 1984 started when he was 19 & ended when he was 20).

Yea I think it's Becker as well and look at their records against the top 10 as teenagers:

Becker — 32-16
Borg — 31-34

 

[Underdog]

Post is about strongest player who played strongest rivals and dominated so it is not just about slams, hence in this Nadal is nowhere in picture since he dominated the least. He got dominated by Djokovic in his own 20s, Novak won more titles in Nadal's 20s, LOL, and you are saying Nadal dominated ? For what? CGS is not an indicator of anyone being 1 otherwise Agassi would be rated ahead, I don't rate CGS high as the conditions are homogenous, grass is not as fast as it should be, Federer himself during his retirement indicated that now players in this time can have records like won all masters twice, all slams twice, this kind of records were much harder in the past, FED said that.

Its is either Federer>Sampras>Djokovic>Nadal OR Sampras>Federer>Djokovic>Nadal, in any combination but Nadal remains the worst of the 4. The other 3 guys emerged on top in their 20s but Nadal remains rank 2 in his own time. That is the proof of he being 4th in the comparison. 3 year end 1s & 141 weeks only at 1 and you are telling me he is not 4th ? How ? He faced strong competition but so did Pete and Nole, they emerged at 1 in their times, Nadal didn't.

First, my post said absolutely nothing about domination, so I have no clue where your “and you are saying Nadal dominated ?” comes from.
Then, for me, it’s pretty straightforward that Nadal is the one who played the strongest rivals, considering he had prime Federer and then prime Djokovic.
Well, obviously a CGS alone won’t cut it, but it adds to the picture. Nadal may not have won the most titles, but he won more Slams and reached CGS first. That’s a fact. The conditions were the same for both Nadal and Djokovic, homogenous or not - that’s no reasonable argument.
It seems that your basing your point solely on weeks/YE#1. Yeah, that’s an amazing achievement, but, especially for Sampras, it doesn’t cut the difference for more Masters, more Slams (and finals), CGS, stronger rivals.
Djokovic had three years of his 20s slamless, Fed and Pete had two and Nadal one.
Djokovic may have had the overall h2h advantage over Nadal in his 20s, but that necessarily translated to better results where it matters most. Nadal lead the Slam h2h resulting in only two correspondent ages when Novak won more Slams than Nadal: 28 and 29yo (2014-2016 injury slump), whereas Nadal had 4 ages when he won more than Djokovic: 20, 22, 23 and 27.
Like I said, I do think Federer is the correct answer, though one could argue that Nadal was better. One could even argue in favor of Djokovic over Nadal, but Sampras is simply below him.

 

[Razer]

First, my post said absolutely nothing about domination, so I have no clue where your “and you are saying Nadal dominated ?” comes from.
Then, for me, it’s pretty straightforward that Nadal is the one who played the strongest rivals, considering he had prime Federer and then prime Djokovic.
Well, obviously a CGS alone won’t cut it, but it adds to the picture. Nadal may not have won the most titles, but he won more Slams and reached CGS first. That’s a fact. The conditions were the same for both Nadal and Djokovic, homogenous or not - that’s no reasonable argument.
It seems that your basing your point solely on weeks/YE#1. Yeah, that’s an amazing achievement, but, especially for Sampras, it doesn’t cut the difference for more Masters, more Slams (and finals), CGS, stronger rivals.
Djokovic had three years of his 20s slamless, Fed and Pete had two and Nadal one.
Djokovic may have had the overall h2h advantage over Nadal in his 20s, but that necessarily translated to better results where it matters most. Nadal lead the Slam h2h resulting in only two correspondent ages when Novak won more Slams than Nadal: 28 and 29yo (2014-2016 injury slump), whereas Nadal had 4 ages when he won more than Djokovic: 20, 22, 23 and 27.
Like I said, I do think Federer is the correct answer, though one could argue that Nadal was better. One could even argue in favor of Djokovic over Nadal, but Sampras is simply below him.

The year end 1s and weeks at 1 are very important. The goal of a player is to be the best in the world i.e Rank 1. See what any player says he is young, they all talk about rank 1. So that cannot be ignored. 6 year end 1s puts Sampras right at the top and 3 year end 1s puts Nadal right at the bottom.

Competition - Sampras & Djokovic had the strongest competition followed by Nadal and Federer who had weaker competition. You might ask how is that? Nadal's prime coincided with Federer and Djokovic, so how ? My answer is - Nadal's most slams and titles are on CLAY, and on clay he has no competition, the guys like Djoker and Federer are average competition for him, neither of them are clay courters and the field in itself is filled with Hard Courters, so in this era Djokovic had the strongest competition, he had to break through Nadal and Federer to become rank 1. Nadal was already rank 2 at age 19 because there was a big vacuum present in mid 2000s because of Fed's peers being injured/bums/both, so Nadal used his matchup advantage & age advantage to slowly control Federer but did this yield him tonnes of non clay slams? Nope it didnt, Djoker still dominated all the non clam slams, as did Federer. So just dominating a surface where he has no competitioin in his league does not amount to toughness. He had it tougher overall than Federer, I can agree to that, but Nole and Sampras had tougher rivals. Between Djokovic and Sampras I will say Sampras had it slightly tougher because his era had surface specialists and so he could not have won the french open since his serve and volley ways were not great for clay. Plus Sampras had consistent great rivals in early 20s, mid 20s and when he was in late 20s then youngsters arrived who were 10 years younger to him, as the baseline poly era was slowly starting this marked the decline of Sampras and his style of play, so he had it very tough throughout his career.

So Federer can be the correct answer OR it could be Sampras based on how much he dominated tough competition in his time.

 

[Razer]

Performance in Finals in their 20s

Sampras -> Win% = 74.03% [ 57-20 ]
Federer -> Win% = 70.97% [ 66-27 ]
Djokovic -> Win% = 68.9% [ 62-28 ]
Nadal -> Win% = 63.86% [ 53-30 ]

The best players are judged by their performance at the main event ...... Thats where Sampras is the ultimate alpha male in his era.....

Nadal has suffered there because he is a bit clay oriented, it has nothing to do with primes clashing with Fed or Novak, this guy is of the same age as Novak and has 5% lower win % in finals, LOL....

 

[Underdog]

The year end 1s and weeks at 1 are very important. The goal of a player is to be the best in the world i.e Rank 1. See what any player says he is young, they all talk about rank 1. So that cannot be ignored. 6 year end 1s puts Sampras right at the top and 3 year end 1s puts Nadal right at the bottom.

Competition - Sampras & Djokovic had the strongest competition followed by Nadal and Federer who had weaker competition. You might ask how is that? Nadal's prime coincided with Federer and Djokovic, so how ? My answer is - Nadal's most slams and titles are on CLAY, and on clay he has no competition, the guys like Djoker and Federer are average competition for him, neither of them are clay courters and the field in itself is filled with Hard Courters, so in this era Djokovic had the strongest competition, he had to break through Nadal and Federer to become rank 1. Nadal was already rank 2 at age 19 because there was a big vacuum present in mid 2000s because of Fed's peers being injured/bums/both, so Nadal used his matchup advantage & age advantage to slowly control Federer but did this yield him tonnes of non clay slams? Nope it didnt, Djoker still dominated all the non clam slams, as did Federer. So just dominating a surface where he has no competitioin in his league does not amount to toughness. He had it tougher overall than Federer, I can agree to that, but Nole and Sampras had tougher rivals. Between Djokovic and Sampras I will say Sampras had it slightly tougher because his era had surface specialists and so he could not have won the french open since his serve and volley ways were not great for clay. Plus Sampras had consistent great rivals in early 20s, mid 20s and when he was in late 20s then youngsters arrived who were 10 years younger to him, as the baseline poly era was slowly starting this marked the decline of Sampras and his style of play, so he had it very tough throughout his career.

So Federer can be the correct answer OR it could be Sampras based on how much he dominated tough competition in his time.

Well, I’m not taking away the importance of rank 1, but I think most players want to be successful in Slams and the rank comes as consequence. Sampras being six times YE#1 versus Nadal’s three actually shows how he had it easier than Nadal.
You can argue that the “baseline” of the field could’ve been higher for Sampras, but the battle at the summit was way harder for Nadal in Federer and Djokovic and that’s what prevented him (all three, actually) from getting more YE#1s.
First, there’s no such thing as “Nadal didn’t have hard competition because of Clay”. That's completely arbitrary by you. If Nadal is so much better, good for him. Doesn’t change the fact that Federer, Djokovic even Wawrinka, Ferrer and Thiem were there. Sampras otoh, well, no RG title. Nadal has won CGS at age 24, came within a match (injured in one) of making DCGS at age 27.
Nadal beat prime Federer at Wimbledon then at AO. He holds the h2h advantage over prime Djokovic at the USO. If there were no Djokovic (who himself is miles above anyone from Sampras’ era), Nadal would’ve likely won 5 Slams in a row from 2011 to 2012 (having lost in AO 11 due to injury, also).
You say Nadal just dominated a surface, but he ended his 20s with just one fewer Wimbledon than Djokovic and one more USO. I believe that’s pretty level and not like “Djokovic dominater all nom-clay Slams”.
For almost two of his best years, Novak’s main rival was Murray, who despite great is leagues below the Big 3.
What kind of argument is “Nadal is so exquisitely good on clay that it counts as no competition, because he’s just too good. So Nadal’s below” amyways?

 

[Underdog]

Performance in Finals in their 20s

Sampras -> Win% = 74.03% [ 57-20 ]
Federer -> Win% = 70.97% [ 66-27 ]
Djokovic -> Win% = 68.9% [ 62-28 ]
Nadal -> Win% = 63.86% [ 53-30 ]

The best players are judged by their performance at the main event ...... Thats where Sampras is the ultimate alpha male in his era.....

Nadal has suffered there because he is a bit clay oriented, it has nothing to do with primes clashing with Fed or Novak, this guy is of the same age as Novak and has 5% lower win % in finals, LOL....

Sure thing, mate, hahaha.
That has absolutely NOTHING to do with Nadal facing prime Federer and Djokovic in many finals, because, surely, there were players of the same caliber facing Sampras in his finals.
Come on.
Out of the 19 times Djokovic has faced prime Federer, 5 were finals. He won two.
Nadal faced prime Federer 22 times. 18 of which were finals. He won 12.

 

[Razer]

Well, I’m not taking away the importance of rank 1, but I think most players want to be successful in Slams and the rank comes as consequence. Sampras being six times YE#1 versus Nadal’s three actually shows how he had it easier than Nadal.
You can argue that the “baseline” of the field could’ve been higher for Sampras, but the battle at the summit was way harder for Nadal in Federer and Djokovic and that’s what prevented him (all three, actually) from getting more YE#1s.
First, there’s no such thing as “Nadal didn’t have hard competition because of Clay”. That's completely arbitrary by you. If Nadal is so much better, good for him. Doesn’t change the fact that Federer, Djokovic even Wawrinka, Ferrer and Thiem were there. Sampras otoh, well, no RG title. Nadal has won CGS at age 24, came within a match (injured in one) of making DCGS at age 27.
Nadal beat prime Federer at Wimbledon then at AO. He holds the h2h advantage over prime Djokovic at the USO. If there were no Djokovic (who himself is miles above anyone from Sampras’ era), Nadal would’ve likely won 5 Slams in a row from 2011 to 2012 (having lost in AO 11 due to injury, also).
You say Nadal just dominated a surface, but he ended his 20s with just one fewer Wimbledon than Djokovic and one more USO. I believe that’s pretty level and not like “Djokovic dominater all nom-clay Slams”.
For almost two of his best years, Novak’s main rival was Murray, who despite great is leagues below the Big 3.
What kind of argument is “Nadal is so exquisitely good on clay that it counts as no competition, because he’s just too good. So Nadal’s below” amyways?

Big 3 & Murray were fighting at the summit because they were the guys making that far all the same time, so it could be argued that it is they who had it easier than Sampras.

As @Pheasant mentioned in the other thread, the surfaces were more polarized before 2007 and terribly polarized before 2002, so this factor make it significantly tougher for Sampras to not only win CGS but also to consistently reach SF/F everytime. The Big 3 have had this advantage, thats why they

Sampras reached the Semi Final 182 times in his 20s
Murray reached the Semi Final 147 times in his 20s
Agassi reached the Semi Final 123 times in his 20s
Thomas Muster reached the Semi Final 131 times in his 20s (98 of them were on clay)

Is Agassi worse than muster ? Nope, that was the era of surface specialists and Muster was supreme consistent on Clay. Is Murray better than Agassi? I dont think so, if Murray was in that era then he would find it harder to make deep runs, his Semi FInals would reduce a lot. Same for Big 3, they would all find it harder to make deep runs as Sampras did, so lesser summit clashes and more upsets in earlier rounds. Poly Strings increased the divide between the field and the top guys, the beneficiaries were Big 3.

 

[Underdog]

Big 3 & Murray were fighting at the summit because they were the guys making that far all the same time, so it could be argued that it is they who had it easier than Sampras.

As @Pheasant mentioned in the other thread, the surfaces were more polarized before 2007 and terribly polarized before 2002, so this factor make it significantly tougher for Sampras to not only win CGS but also to consistently reach SF/F everytime. The Big 3 have had this advantage, thats why they

Sampras reached the Semi Final 182 times in his 20s
Murray reached the Semi Final 147 times in his 20s
Agassi reached the Semi Final 123 times in his 20s
Thomas Muster reached the Semi Final 131 times in his 20s (98 of them were on clay)

Is Agassi worse than muster ? Nope, that was the era of surface specialists and Muster was supreme consistent on Clay. Is Murray better than Agassi? I dont think so, if Murray was in that era then he would find it harder to make deep runs, his Semi FInals would reduce a lot. Same for Big 3, they would all find it harder to make deep runs as Sampras did, so lesser summit clashes and more upsets in earlier rounds. Poly Strings increased the divide between the field and the top guys, the beneficiaries were Big 3.

Big 3 + Murray amassed 69 Slams between them. That’s as hard a competition as it gets.
I agree that it was harder to achieve a CGS back then, but it’s a huge achievement nonetheless and Agassi managed to do it.
Of course Agassi is better than Muster because, most of all, despite playing less semifinals, he won 8 Slams and Career Golden Slam. It was not a good analogy there as it was obvious stat picking to show something that no one believes.
As per Agassi v Murray, that’s a good debate. I think Agassi’s 8 Slams titles and 15 finals have the edge, but Murray’s numbers (3 titles, 11 finals) don’t do him any justice because of his peers.
I don’t see how poly strings increase the gap between players as every player has access to it the same. You could argue they benefit some players more than other due to stroke style, but that’s about it. Same way as non-poly strings didn’t benefit the same stroke styke as much back then. I’d call this progress, evolution in sport.
Is Steph Curry necessarily worse than Wilt Chamberlain because he is a three-point shooter in an era when it’s become one of the strongest fundamentals in the game that it wasn’t before? (Especially since Curry himself is a huge contributor to the growth of distance shooting).

 

[Pheasant]

Post is about strongest player who played strongest rivals and dominated so it is not just about slams, hence in this Nadal is nowhere in picture since he dominated the least. He got dominated by Djokovic in his own 20s, Novak won more titles in Nadal's 20s, LOL, and you are saying Nadal dominated ? For what? CGS is not an indicator of anyone being 1 otherwise Agassi would be rated ahead, I don't rate CGS high as the conditions are homogenous, grass is not as fast as it should be, Federer himself during his retirement indicated that now players in this time can have records like won all masters twice, all slams twice, this kind of records were much harder in the past, FED said that.

Its is either Federer>Sampras>Djokovic>Nadal OR Sampras>Federer>Djokovic>Nadal, in any combination but Nadal remains the worst of the 4. The other 3 guys emerged on top in their 20s but Nadal remains rank 2 in his own time. That is the proof of he being 4th in the comparison. 3 year end 1s & 141 weeks only at 1 and you are telling me he is not 4th ? How ? He faced strong competition but so did Pete and Nole, they emerged at 1 in their times, Nadal didn't.

Agreed. And Fed vs Sampras makes my head spin. Fed has the insane numbers with several seasons of having a winning pct over .900; something Pete was never close to. However, Pete was insanely clutch in the biggest tourneys. Toss in more polarized surfaces, and we get a a very dominant Pete. And I wouldn’t exclude Lendl; a guy who changed the game with his fitness and insane baseline play. That guy was 34-7 vs the top 5 from 1985-87, despite that insanely tough era. And by the way, 37 of those 44 matches vs the top 5 were against players that won 6+ slam titles in their career.

To me, it’s Lendl vs Sampras vs Federer. And I can’t pick a winner.