10 RG and it's done.
But would his relative one dimensionality on clay hurt his argument?
I think winning once more at the other 3 would be better for a more rounded resume. Less likely than another couple RG's though.
He can maybe reach Pete's slam count but that's about it.
I think so.
Sampras >>>>>>> Nadal. Even if Nadal wins more majors than the great man himself. Nadal's tennis is just ugly, effective yes but painful to watch. Yes Nadal will catch and pass Sampras but Sampras will forever be the better player in my view.
Certainly some bring in aesthetics and game when comparing greats.
Number of titles and number of slams is catchable, but if i look overall career it's going to be very hard for Nadal to catch up.
Yep, yep. Slams and titles are catchable, but I doubt Nadal can get all that time at #1 and no way he wins as many Year End Masters.
I would expect so , Nadull is one of the best movers in the game , and Sampras is almost 41 .
Your ranking is based too much on numbers without looking at context. 2-3 Wimbledon finals is not bad when you consider that 2 of those finals he lost to one of the greatest who ever played on that court. It shows consistency on the surface to have gotten to so many finals there.
Nadal has the career golden slam - more rounded achievements than Sampras. To add to that he adapted his game to be able to win Wimbledon & US Open - Sampras stuck to the same game plan throughout - even on clay.
As for YE no.1 - again - look at who was fighting Sampras for the no.1 title most years - Agassi was AWOL a lot of the time so there was no other all time great player threatening him. Nadal on the other hand had Federer to deal with from the start. No Federer = Nadal being no.1 in 05, 06, 07 too i.e. 5 YE no.1s already.
I'm not saying Nadal is better than Sampras - Sampras has a lot of slams, great time at the top etc. - but just pointing out that the context of some of the records needs to be looked at, as does the competition. Winning most of your slams vs Djokovic and Federer is pretty impressive. Can he get to 14? Perhaps. He just needs one good run - what if next summer the knees stick with him and he does the channel slam again? Suddenly he's at 13 and only needs 1. He'll probably play at least 2 more seasons - needs 3 out of 9 majors - possible - certainly not utterly beyond reach - given that 2 of those are the French Open.
Finally if Nadal reaches 14 then to me there's no question he exceeds Sampras -most players would go for a career slam; an overall record at a slam; a gold medal; multiple Davis Cups; winning H2H vs pretty much all your main rivals (Novak may change) including one of the best ever; winning the greatest match of all time and having many other "epic" matches; pretty much every clay record in the book - THAN Sampras' time at no1, his YECs etc. Both great but Nadal's career would overall be more balanced and complete.
True, true. Nadal's resume would certainly look more balanced than Sampras', also the Career Golden Slam. Nadal also has adapted to his worst surface better than Pete, imo.
I would be surprise if he doesn't
I think Nadal can get to 14, he can get to 64 overall titles, he can also maybe catch Pete in overall wins, but I'd be beyond shocked if he came close to Pete's 6 Year End #1's, 286 weeks, or 5 Year End Masters. How much does Rafa's Olympic Gold, 4 Davis Cups and 10 more Masters 1000 titles count for then? I think if Nadal maxes out the rest of his career, it can be very close.