Mens Tennis Forums banner

Who do you rate higher?

Who do you rate higher, Djokovic or Sampras?

19K views 224 replies 92 participants last post by  RocketMan70 
#1 ·
I find it strange there hasn't been a discussion thread about this, or perhaps I'm just not aware of it. I think it's a pretty interesting discussion and both players have a good case.

Some stats:

Djokovic

- Won 12 slams
- Has a career slam
- NCYGS
- 5 YEC
- 30 masters
- 219 weeks(and counting) as #1

Sampras

- Won 14 slams
- 5 YEC
- 11 Masters
- 286 weeks as #1

Obviously Sampras is ahead in the most important stat i.e the slams, which I doubt it'll remain for long, but I feel 2 more slams isn't enough for me to rate Sampras over Djokovic considering Djokovic has won the career slam and the NCYGS which for me are critical factors. Career slams shows the ability to be great across all surfaces and the NCYGS shows insane domination of the game which Sampras could only dream of doing.

You could argue that surface homogenization has helped Djokovic a lot and that's why he achieved career slam but you can also argue that Sampras was lucky to play in an era whereby the courts were ridiculously fast and benefited his S&V style of play. So imo this argument shouldn't be used for both sides.

So basically I personally rate Djokovic higher. What do you guys think?
 
See less See more
#3 ·
Sampras obviously. Not only 14>12 but Sampras won in a tougher era. Imagine what Sampras would do if he peaked in '14-current era.

The only thing Djokovic has in his favor is RG and nothing else.
 
#164 · (Edited)
I would still say Sampras right now, but it's probably just a matter of time until Novak surpasses both him and Nadal.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

On topic:

Clearly Sampras, although the "Who cares? RAFA is far greater than this weak era clowns and that's all that matters" is also valid now that Nadal has clearly surpassed Sampras.

Sampras has the edge in all the key categories: 2 more slams, more weeks at #1, more YE #1, dominated 2 grand slams (USO and W) vs Djokovic who only dominated 1 (AO).

Sampras also played in a far stronger era versus Djokovic who vultured most of his slams during the time with an irrelevant Nadal, Mugray, and 35 y.o. Federer.
 
#5 ·
It's Sampras as of now because +2 and +67 gives him the edge - those are the two most impressive stats when talking about history. However once the difference is reduced to +1 and +30ish there will be no doubt Djokovic is better because of other accolades (+20 masters, NCYGS, CGS, more titles overall, maybe more WTFs)
 
#6 ·
Masters mean nothing as they weren't that important during the 90's. Sampras was #1 even without competing much in them and he didn't take them seriously. If Djokovic wins 1 more it'll still be 14>13.
 
#7 ·
I'll be honest here and say Djokovic. He's way more dominant and consistent than Sampras and his career is more complete with the CGS and NCYGS. Sampras couldn't make it to RG final even for once. Also the difference in Masters is so big and Masters titles are not easy to win. However, my vote in the poll goes to Sampras, because this is how this place's polls work.
 
#11 ·
Well played with the poll options @Cloren :haha:
 
#19 ·
Sampras for sure.

1, he has more slams, at the end of the day to the casual that is all that matters.
2, he competed in a tougher era, like it or not.

I find it odd comparing Masters, Djokovic has a fantastic masters record but the Masters were not that important in the 90's.

Look at how many Sampras was playing in lol.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Matt01
#22 ·
difficult to decide. Sampras has 2 more slams but Nole has more master series and has won the RG while sampras was useless on clay. I think if Nole just wins one more slam, I will rate him higher as Sampras was not as unbeatable as Nole in his heyday :tennis:
 
#25 ·
I agree with your analysis more or less. Sampras leads in the most weighted stat - overall slams, but I think Novak has the slight edge overall at this stage. He may have 2 fewer slams (a deficit that will probably be reduced or eliminated entirely next year) but he has won all 4 which Sampras has not. He also has more masters etc and is not done winning yet
 
#28 ·
btw, since we're comparing Sampras and Djokovic I can mention that this week they have exactly as many weeks ranked in the top-4. 484 each.

Ranking comparison. Weeks at/in:

#1 Sampras 286 Djokovic 219
top-2 Sampras 376 Djokovic 316
top-3 Djokovic 459 Sampras 457
top-4 both 484
top-5 Sampras 511 Djokovic 489
top-10 Sampras 586 Djokovic 499
top-50 Sampras 710 Djokovic 539
top-100 Sampras 767 Djokovic 588
 
#35 · (Edited)
It is laughable how the people who are not informed about a particular tennis era or didn't watch it at all, are letting their ignorance rule them into 'GUESSING' that Sampras was greater than Djokovic.
It's just stupid the lack of context.

First of all Novak is by far a more complete player than Sampras ever was at any stage of his career.

But let's also elaborate on the nerdy statistics which buffoons seem to think is the only way:

Djokovic:
- 5 world tour finals titles - 4 of which were in a row! This doesn't get talked about enough, but Djokovic has won 4 world tour finals titles in a row since 2011.
- The career slam, as well as countless French Open finals.
- 3 slams on his weakest surface, grass
- 30 Masters 1000 titles

Sampras
- 5 world tour finals titles
- No career slam and only ONE semi final in the French Open.
- 0 slams on his weakest surface, clay
- 11 Masters 1000 titles (But wait, he never took them seriously. Nothing to do with him not having the fitness to maintain exploding with the serve and then rushing to the net)


Obviously for sheep, lemmings, layman's people. Simpletons. 14 > 12 in majors is all that counts. That is the only language these goons speak and so therefore that is all this debate on here will surface around. AS IT'S MTF. Not a class of objective intellectuals.

Only reason Novak's fanboys are agreeing that Sampras is greater with 2 extra slams is because they can't be bothered to argue the point and know full well he'll obliterate that record of 14 slams.

4 world tour finals titles, in a row my friends. Beating Federer in the final of how many of them? On an indoor court where the air is thin and the ball travels faster due to the aerodynamic physics? No consideration for any of these nuances.

Sampras was probably the best server that ever lived. The best volleyer that ever lived. And his transition to the net was beautiful to watch. Poetry in motion. He had the best over-head the game has ever seen. However. He was in no way as COMPLETE as Djokovic and that's what makes a player great. There are many one trick pony's around. Many players who specialise in doing one or two things GREAT. Djokovic does everything way above average. Now if you can find anyone else in history that can match that, then.... I'll say, fair enough my man.
 
#37 ·
Djokovic is very good at a bunch of things but he's not the best in history at pretty much anything except for the ROS. And no matter how good your ROS is serve>return

The only surface Djokovic is the best on is slow hard. Meanwhile Sampras dominated both grass and fast hard. Djokovic is an embarrassing 2-5 at USO finals having lost to all members of the Big 4 and Wawrinka which is just flat out embarassing.
 
#40 ·
@ClutchOn&Win: Ok, so please correct me if I'm reading and understanding your highly sophisticated and unbiased posts above incorrectly...so your best argument for putting Novak "12 Slams" Djokovic ahad of Pete "14 Slams" Sampras is because Djokovic won the WTF 4 years in a row? So winning a tournament 4 times in a row is better than qualifying for the same tournament 10 years in a row, never losing before the SF and in the end winning it the same times as the other player? That in your world makes up for a 2 Slam difference?
 
#41 · (Edited)
Sampras won his slams in an era of lightning-fast courts. The grass and hard courts are wildly different today. No comparison. And his playing style would be outdated today. The athletes and players are way better now also. Sampras wouldn't stand a chance of winning slams in today's game. Fact.

Federer won his slams before tennis became really physical and athletic and before everyone started playing more from the baseline. And before real athletes and tennis players emerged. Federer has zero USO since 2008, one AO in nearly ten years, and has gotten regularly owned on Wimbledon grass since 2007.
 
This post has been deleted
#44 ·
According to Djokovic's worshippers "grinding to win" is the criteria for being most complete player ever :haha:

Clearly they don't know anything about net game, volley, overheads, tweeners, etc.
 
#50 ·
Yeah another argument that really favours Djokovic is consistency. It's not a major breaker for me because winning is far more important than just consistency but it can't be totally ignored either.

He was far more consistent than Sampras, made QF/SF/F nearly all the time since 2011, Sampras had far more early round losses. I mean didn't he in 1998 end as #1 with just 1 slam, QF, R2, SF in the other slams and R2, R2, R2, R3, QF, F, SF, F, SF in the masters events + YEC?
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top