Nalbandian was horrid. I remember that match well. Couldn't even keep the ball in the court, errors all over the place, missing routine shots, couldn't hold serve, etc. It was just a pathetic performance. He made Hewitt look like Sampras.
I think he will. Although maybe if he’d invested in it more he wouldn’t have had the great success at Wimbledon and us open. We will never know but it is what it is. Still an amazing career for Pete.
Fair enough, he did really suck. No tears at least
You're ridiculous. Many many players have referred to WTF as the 5th biggest and talk about it as the goal of the season to reach it.
I think the French was just seen as a resume filler back then, and not highly coveted the way Wimbledon and the Open were. Pete's approach to it was very unprofessional. Hell, he changed his game up more between grass and hard than he did hard and clay, which is saying something.
No. Djokovic won way more Masters (which is insanely impressive in this era) but you can't compare Pete's performance in the Masters to Nole's because they were out of 5, which meant players prepped for and around them much differently. And the focus was much more on Slams in that time, because wear and tear was a much more real liability in the 90s and prior than it is now with modern medicine.
I could make a compelling case for Sampras as GOAT given his era but too many fanboys and girls on here will derail such a thread with contradictory posts such as he only has 14 slams (yet Djokovic is now GOAT etc etc).
The irony of your post. Djokovic has a much more lopsided resume. He is a hard court specialist using your criteria.
See the match you're talking about is one of my Sampras favorites, not just because of level, but because of his spirit. Agassi later said, "Pete had no business pulling that weekend off". It was his worst surface, Agassi couldn't compete due to injury, and Courier was out, so Pete after literally collapsing due to cramps in his first singles match took it on himself to play doubles and then singles again against Kafelnikov and got it done.
Agassi once said that while Federer is the best he has played consistently Sampras had the best highest level he ever faced. He has played all the modern ATGs bar Borg.
I would agree. He might have to change that "best consistently" to Djoker when its all said and done though.
Nadal is one year older than Djokovic. 20-18 shows Nadal best of his era. Federer not really same era as too big an age gap.
Federer v Djokovic is something we will never know. 6 year age gap for me is too big to say they ever played peak v peak. Personally i think Federer at his best was a superior player both at his best level and consistently to Djokovic but that is an opinion not anything substantive.
I never said it was the ''5th slam''. Keep lying to yourself but don't put lies in my mouth.
Why didn't you take Djok as an example from year 2000? Or perhaps when he was 7 yrs of age.
Djokovic outperformed Pete in Slams, Masters, weeks at #1, and equaled him at YE# 1 and ATP finals. Plus he was much better on clay and rivaled even the greats with his consistency on the surface and ability to win big titles. Djokovic's 4 in a row, 2011 and 2015 seasons just seals it in any comparison with Pete in who dominated more.
AO is the easiest to win. Close the thread.
But you don't get to discount clay, as your statement above the bolded shows. If you're going to say Nole>Pete because of clay, then you have to accept Rafa leads h2h over Nole on clay, and overall slam count therefore Rafa>Nole
Nadal doesn't really have an era like Djokovic does. Before Djokovic began his ascension, he was 8 Slams behind Nadal and 16 behind Federer. Since that time he is within 2 of each. He has won 6/10 Slams since the middle of 2018 which is why this is still his era. He has won 17 Slams since January 2011, while Nadal won 11, Federer won 4, and Murray and Wawrinka won 3. All great players but Djokovic has been the leader for 10 years. He is something like 44-22 against Fedal in that timeframe, held all the Slams, won all Masters multiple times, more then 300 weeks at #1, 6 YE #1 and 3 other times finished #2, etc. so to say those players all have arguments and Djokovic doesn't is ludicrous.
How is that discounting clay? Of course Djokovic > Sampras on clay and it's not close. I also already said Nadal is still greater being that he is 2 Slams ahead. To reply to your other point, Nadal has 13 RGs and Djokovic has 1. We already know Nadal is better and the Slam head to head is skewed because of Djokovic's consistency to reach Nadal on his best surface and Nadal's failure to do the same on the flip side against Djokovic on his best surfaces. This stat is not that important.
Nadal has an era. He is the dominant player of his era. He took the baton on from federer. Djokovic has no era. He is behind Nadal his generational rival. From 2017-2020 Nadal won more Majors as well so where exactly is the Djokovic era?
What Majors are played indoors over 3 sets.
Nadal doesn't have a 2006 or 2015. Not trying to be negative towards him but these are facts. He didn't dominate the game to the extent those two did. He didn't win 6 out of 7 Slams like Federer or 5 out 6 Slams like Djokovic, which is why they are way ahead at time at #1. You're right Nadal did win more majors from 2017-2020, when Djokovic was irrelevant for 2 years, but the since mid 2018, Djokovic has won 6 and Nadal has won 3.
The 2nd part of your post is too arbitary. Why discount 2017?
So you must have had that view before the season started then?
Things could change when it's all said and done, tho.
Is it clear? Djokovic has not won outside Australia at a Major since 2019 at Wimbledon. And he almost lost to a 38 year old past his prime. Does just winning AO add to his legacy?
Wimbledon was cancelled in 2020.
Right now i have Nadal a smidgen ahead of Federer on top of pile if Majors are the be all and end all. If not Federer is. I have Djokovic a fair way behind currently. I suppose the Nole Slam could get him about level but i always read it was the CYGS that was the holy grail ala Graf 1988.Things could change when it's all said and done, tho.
If you think he's got some catching up to do now...
Cant make this argument vs Nadal frankly. And who’s gonna beat him at Wimbledon? Post prime Fed has been his only comp for years outside of that one Nadal match
Yes. About time Djokovic made more of that frankly. Could have easily played that event.
Man, it's hard to be a Sureshs devotee lately.
Nadal could as if they meet it would be in the final or semi but either way whem courts are dusty not grassy. If the weather is hot id back Nadal as Djokovic in heat wilts. One reason he does so well in Australia is most if not all his matches are nighttime and in Melbourne at night the temperature drops quickly even on hot days .
Don't get me wrong. I'm the #1 @sureshs devotee... I moved to his neighborhood to be close to His Greatness!
Didnt say he is not consistent. That is a different argument altogether..i just.mentioned winning.
Just a joke W wasnt played last year. Pathetic really.
Raga...
Raga...
en.m.wikipedia.org
I see....interesting.Raga - Wikipedia
I voted for Djoke!
