Nadal vs. Sampras Thread [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Nadal vs. Sampras Thread

Pages : [1] 2

Purple Rainbow
04-24-2006, 07:40 PM
Lately we have seen many threads debating wether Federer or Sampras is the greatest payer ever. It has been pointed out how similar the two players are statwise at a certain juncture in their career.

It lately struck me just how much ahead Nadal is of both Sampras and Federer as a teenager. Here's to put things into perspective.
Nadal has now won..

14 titles - well ahead of the likes of Rafter, Mecir and Ferrero, trailing players like Safin and Rosset by only 1 title.

5 TMS events - just insane for a teenager, already 6th on the all-time list.

a lone slam. But neither Sampras nor Federer did better as a teen.

The sole reason Nadal hasn't been number one yet is because there is a certain Swiss powerhouse in the game. Yet Nadal finished 2005 with a ranking point total which would have seen him as #1 each but one year between 1997 and 2003.

Nadal obviously posted most of his results on clay, but he has proven he can win on other surfaces too, with masters shields on carpet and hard court. In a way you can picture Nadal as an inverse Sampras. Rafa has clay as his base, can play well on carpet and hard courts too, but has one surface which might become an eternal problem... grass. It will be very interesting to see if Nadal can adept his game to become a force on grass too and if he manages to prevent the mid twenties burnout which seems to be common among clay court specialists these days.

nobama
04-24-2006, 07:46 PM
What's the point of this thread, that Nadal will become the GOAT? Isn't it a bit early to say at 19? Anyway I thought Laver was the GOAT. :shrug:

Purple Rainbow
04-24-2006, 07:56 PM
What's the point of this thread, that Nadal will become the GOAT? Isn't it a bit early to say at 19? Anyway I thought Laver was the GOAT. :shrug:

Of course it's too early to tell, but with Nadal's results he is well on his way to immortality. I just wanted to point out how far ahead Nadal is at his age.

prima donna
04-24-2006, 07:57 PM
Hahahahaha. This thread. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

ChloeLove
04-24-2006, 08:11 PM
I like this thread . . . :rolleyes: He has tons of records, and still is only a teenager. It is early in his career, which leads me to think about how much more he will accomplish. He's amazing.

ATPtennis.com is also posting a lot of stuff about him lately, if you scroll down the page, you will see that he has the best record in finals, 87.5%. He is also on the way to holding the most consecutive wins on clay, right behind Borg, and Vilas.

Allez
04-24-2006, 10:33 PM
I have to admit Rafa is a phenomenon. Those stats are just crazy for someone aged only 19....hell for anyone for that matter. Those who hate him love to think that it's inevitable that he burns out, but I just don't see it happening. Very interesting comparison you're making between Rafa and Pete. Very good. This guy has won more Masters than Hewitt, JCF, Safin, Coria etc. With an all but guaranteed win this week in Barcelona, he's going to match the great Marat in the number of tournaments won. :eek::eek::eek: He's beaten the likes of Agassi, Federer, Ljubicic on their favourite surfaces. I hope they seed him 2nd at Wimbledon so we can see whether he's made any improvements on that surface...enough to meet Rogi in the final. I would really enjoy THAT match safe in the knowledge that Rogi would prevail :bounce:

jenanun
04-24-2006, 10:38 PM
i will be more than happy if nadal gets into QF of wimbledon within next 2 years...

actually if nadal continues to improve his serve, to produce faster serve, i can see him into the semi.... he is more willing to come to the net these days and his volley is not bad at all, he has still got plenty of room to imrpove... and i really believe he can win wimbledon one day...

coz

I HAVE FAITH IN THIS GUY! VAMOS RAFA!

Merton
04-24-2006, 11:01 PM
What's the point of this thread, that Nadal will become the GOAT? Isn't it a bit early to say at 19? Anyway I thought Laver was the GOAT. :shrug:

The true GOAT:

http://www.ics.uci.edu/~pazzani/4H/Tog.gif

jrm
04-24-2006, 11:05 PM
Somehow i doubt Nadal will be able to win 10 + slams in his life unless he wins RG year after year till 30!

almouchie
04-24-2006, 11:12 PM
for one thing
what Rafael is doing is phenomenal
even more impressive than Federer in my book
everyone seems to concentrate on federer,
but they overlook or love to hate a 19 year playing with the maturity & determination that many champs didnt have
it is usually that players who enjoy success early on have a shorter influenc eor domination as they grow older
u always have exception & Nadal surely looks like one
his serve is impriving & will continue , maybe to become a weapon
apart from the 2 player, no one on the circuit is even close to doing well
I mention Ljubo becoz he has a solid game, starting to believe he belongs with the beset
which will help in his GS.

wimbledonfan
04-24-2006, 11:48 PM
If they called then masters series events back in the 80's , Lendle would have about 30 lol .

Federer and Nadal will probably both shatter Agassis record of 17 because they weren't called masters series events back in the late 80's early 90's .

nobama
04-25-2006, 12:30 AM
Of course it's too early to tell, but with Nadal's results he is well on his way to immortality. I just wanted to point out how far ahead Nadal is at his age.OH please he's only 19. How do we know what he'll be doing 2, 3, 5 years from now? I think it's way too early to tell. I think it's ridiculous to say he's on his way to immortality, just like it would be ridiculous to say Roger will break Pete's record of 14 slams when he's only half way there.

bokehlicious
04-25-2006, 08:06 AM
even more impressive than Federer in my book


Far more impressive than Sampras in my book :)

JuchuPati
04-25-2006, 08:13 AM
oh come on! :o

Im rafa fan, but I honestly doubt that he will be able to win someday Wimbledon. if someone is close to "inmortality" :o like a poster said, is Roger. and he's everyday closer to do really well on clay. he has showed last week in Montecarlo. :worship:

Castafiore
04-25-2006, 08:16 AM
OH please he's only 19. How do we know what he'll be doing 2, 3, 5 years from now? I think it's way too early to tell. I think it's ridiculous to say he's on his way to immortality, just like it would be ridiculous to say Roger will break Pete's record of 14 slams when he's only half way there.
Didn't Purple Rain say the same thing?
Of course it's too early to tell

It's much too soon to talk about entire career comparisons at this point given Nadal's age but some people are merely impressed with what he has done SO FAR. Is there anything wrong with that?

Furthermore, I agree that it's ridiculous to say that Roger WILL break Pete's 14 slams record but it's not ridiculous to say that Roger's accomplishments at this point are very impressive and he's very capable of beating that record. Don't you agree?

This is - at least as far as I am concerned - not at all a GOAT discussion (because for me, it's utterly ridiculous to do that at this point) but simply the observation that his accomplisments at his age are remarkable. Nothing more, nothing less. What's the problem with that?
As a Rafa fan, what he has done so far impresses me a lot but he needs to do more on various surfaces before we can start about the GOAT thing. A lot can happen over the years.

TheMightyFed
04-25-2006, 08:40 AM
Cool down man, the GOAT competition is a tough one.

It's mainly defined by slams. TMS fluctuate, change and disapear, so that doesn't count so much. Rafa has time, but GOAT is not about time only.

Who are in the GOAT league ?
Borg: 6 RG, 5 Wimbledons
Well, let Rafa win 6 RG, he'll be busy with that, then we'll see about the Wimby's... ;)
Forget it.

Laver: 11 slams, 2 Grand Slams, including one open era GS.
The Grand Slam is the Holly Grail of men's tennis. Rafa doing the Grand Slam is almost impossible given his clay orientation, he would need a hell of an adaptation to do well on grass, difficult to do a great clay court season in these conditions, and he needs the clay points for his ranking.
Forget it.

Sampras: 14 slams, 6 years as number 1. Sampras was very lucky not to get any major injury in his long and successful career. His game evolved to serve and volley, and his serve alone allowed him to preserve his body by shortening points in the second part of his career. Quite the opposite of Rafa's grinding and contorsioning type of game. Plus the 7 Wimby's set is something very prestigious Rafa can only dream of.
Forget it.

Federer is trying to join GOAT league and you know what ? He's dominating on hard and grass, is second on clay and has won 7 slam finals on 7.
Give Rafa some time to do something similar, but he will need a few years.

SLICK
04-25-2006, 09:11 AM
Lately we have seen many threads debating wether Federer or Sampras is the greatest payer ever. It has been pointed out how similar the two players are statwise at a certain juncture in their career.

It lately struck me just how much ahead Nadal is of both Sampras and Federer as a teenager. Here's to put things into perspective.
Nadal has now won..

14 titles - well ahead of the likes of Rafter, Mecir and Ferrero, trailing players like Safin and Rosset by only 1 title.

5 TMS events - just insane for a teenager, already 6th on the all-time list.

a lone slam. But neither Sampras nor Federer did better as a teen.

The sole reason Nadal hasn't been number one yet is because there is a certain Swiss powerhouse in the game. Yet Nadal finished 2005 with a ranking point total which would have seen him as #1 each but one year between 1997 and 2003.

Nadal obviously posted most of his results on clay, but he has proven he can win on other surfaces too, with masters shields on carpet and hard court. In a way you can picture Nadal as an inverse Sampras. Rafa has clay as his base, can play well on carpet and hard courts too, but has one surface which might become an eternal problem... grass. It will be very interesting to see if Nadal can adept his game to become a force on grass too and if he manages to prevent the mid twenties burnout which seems to be common among clay court specialists these days.

This is a little ridiculous. Nadal is a great champion, supreme on the clay, but not in the same league as a Federer, Sampras, Borg or Laver.
Comparisons between Federer and Sampras I believe are absolutely correct and justified. The one thing that will put Federer ahead of Sampras is a French Open title which he is planning to peak for this year.
Right now I think it is best to think of Nadal as a "souped-up" Muster. The kid has got great wheels, great strokes and a very strong mind and will. He could continue to frustrate Federer on clay and occasionally on hardcourts or carpet, but he can't ever come near to the Grand Slam records of Federer and the aforementioned all-time greats.

nobama
04-25-2006, 12:00 PM
This is - at least as far as I am concerned - not at all a GOAT discussion (because for me, it's utterly ridiculous to do that at this point) but simply the observation that his accomplisments at his age are remarkable. Nothing more, nothing less. What's the problem with that?
As a Rafa fan, what he has done so far impresses me a lot but he needs to do more on various surfaces before we can start about the GOAT thing. A lot can happen over the years.There's nothing wrong with it, but when the poster says "but with Nadal's results he is well on his way to immortality" to me that means the point of this thread was to put him up there as possibly the GOAT. All I'm saying is it's ridiculous to think about that when he's only 19. His accomplishments are VERY impressive especially for his age, but lets wait and see where he's at 3-5 years from now.

Purple Rainbow
04-25-2006, 03:25 PM
This is a little ridiculous. Nadal is a great champion, supreme on the clay, but not in the same league as a Federer, Sampras, Borg or Laver.
Comparisons between Federer and Sampras I believe are absolutely correct and justified. The one thing that will put Federer ahead of Sampras is a French Open title which he is planning to peak for this year.
Right now I think it is best to think of Nadal as a "souped-up" Muster. The kid has got great wheels, great strokes and a very strong mind and will. He could continue to frustrate Federer on clay and occasionally on hardcourts or carpet, but he can't ever come near to the Grand Slam records of Federer and the aforementioned all-time greats.

I am not saying Nadal is necessarily on his way to being goat. As I said before, it's way to early to tell. What I want to prove with this stats is that Nadal is much further in career accomplishments then Federer and Sampras were at similar age. Nadals career achievements roughly equal those of Marat Safin and Juan Carlos Ferrero already.
I like stats, numbers and records, that's why I brought this subject up. I am a Federer fan, but I am definitely not blind for the achievements of others.

Purple Rainbow
04-25-2006, 03:28 PM
There's nothing wrong with it, but when the poster says "but with Nadal's results he is well on his way to immortality" to me that means the point of this thread was to put him up there as possibly the GOAT. All I'm saying is it's ridiculous to think about that when he's only 19. His accomplishments are VERY impressive especially for his age, but lets wait and see where he's at 3-5 years from now.

There's quite a difference between immortalily and goat. I think if Nadal were to retire today, he would have achieved immortality already. People will recall him forever as a player that could have been so great.

TheMightyFed
04-25-2006, 03:49 PM
Impossible to say now, his status in history depends on slams. He's got one slam and nobody knows how many more he could pile up.
A good record would be 5 Roland Garros to start with, but it's already huge given his relative physical fragility.
Maybe 1 or 2 AO.

nobama
04-25-2006, 07:12 PM
There's quite a difference between immortalily and goat. I think if Nadal were to retire today, he would have achieved immortality already. People will recall him forever as a player that could have been so great.I'm not arguing that he'll be remembered as a great tennis player. But he's only 19 and none of us know what will happen in the next 3-5 years. I just don't see the point in talking about how someone will be remembered in historical terms when they're so young and at the beginning of their carrer.

mangoes
04-25-2006, 07:15 PM
I'm not arguing that he'll be remembered as a great tennis player. But he's only 19 and none of us know what will happen in the next 3-5 years. I just don't see the point in talking about how someone will be remembered in historical terms when they're so young and at the beginning of their carrer.


Agree............... Give Nadal some more time.............. People were saying the same thing about Hewitt a couple years ago........

ClaycourtaZzZz.
04-25-2006, 08:00 PM
Good point, yet Federer is still a great sportsman.:)

Liverpool4ever
04-26-2006, 02:05 AM
I'm not arguing that he'll be remembered as a great tennis player. But he's only 19 and none of us know what will happen in the next 3-5 years. I just don't see the point in talking about how someone will be remembered in historical terms when they're so young and at the beginning of their carrer.


I hate it when people think that just, because Nadal is 19 he still has lots of room for improvement, because infact I think Federer still has greater room for improvement at 24 than Nadal.

Hewitt, who may have peaked in 2004-2005, did not improve greatly from the age of 20 to 25. Roddick did not improve much from the age of 20-23. Now compare that with the huge strides that Ljubicic and Blake both made at 25. We can never know how much work a professional player is truly putting in his game and how much they can improve if they really tried. Agassi went from being a 'haircut and a forehand' to the guy with arguably the best backhand on tour. Only time will tell, which player has has yet to reach their peak.

Andre♥
04-26-2006, 02:20 AM
It's great to see a Federer vs Nadal in clay, both are the seeds 1 and 2, so they can only play against each other in finals.

It would be great to see Federer vs Nadal in grass. But that won't happen in the next years. Why? Because Nadal needs a miracle to get into a grass final...

Conclusion:

Federer's worst surface is clay: He's the 2nd best player there.

Nadal's worst surface is grass: He doesn't even belong in the top 20 in this surface.

Federer > Nadal

Merton
04-26-2006, 02:22 AM
I hate it when people think that just, because Nadal is 19 he still has lots of room for improvement, because infact I think Federer still has greater room for improvement at 24 than Nadal.

Hewitt, who may have peaked in 2004-2005, did not improve greatly from the age of 20 to 25. Roddick did not improve much from the age of 20-23. Now compare that with the huge strides that Ljubicic and Blake both made at 25. We can never know how much work a professional player is truly putting in his game and how much they can improve if they really tried. Agassi went from being a 'haircut and a forehand' to the guy with arguably the best backhand on tour. Only time will tell, which player has has yet to reach their peak.

It seems that your second paragraph contradicts the first. Given your evidence in the second paragraph how do you conclude that "Federer still has greater room for improvement than Nadal"?

Mechlan
04-26-2006, 02:23 AM
I hate it when people think that just, because Nadal is 19 he still has lots of room for improvement, because infact I think Federer still has greater room for improvement at 24 than Nadal.

Hewitt, who may have peaked in 2004-2005, did not improve greatly from the age of 20 to 25. Roddick did not improve much from the age of 20-23. Now compare that with the huge strides that Ljubicic and Blake both made at 25. We can never know how much work a professional player is truly putting in his game and how much they can improve if they really tried. Agassi went from being a 'haircut and a forehand' to the guy with arguably the best backhand on tour. Only time will tell, which player has has yet to reach their peak.

I agree with your general sentiments, but in Rafa's case, I think a lot of people believe he will get better because till now, most of his important results have been on clay. Consider that at 3 of the 4 slams, he has never advanced beyond the 4th round. He has the athleticism and mental fortitude already, and seems very determined to improve on his weaker surfaces, so I think it's definitely possible for him to get better.

Will he be able to do it? Time will tell. I think there's no doubt that he's got room for improvement, but there's just no way of knowing if that's going to mean making a couple of runs deep here and there or consistently being a threat on all surfaces. I think the fact that he's already broken all sorts of records at such a young age is what makes people believe that he can do it.

Liverpool4ever
04-26-2006, 02:45 AM
It seems that your second paragraph contradicts the first. Given your evidence in the second paragraph how do you conclude that "Federer still has greater room for improvement than Nadal"?

My second paragraph does not seem to contradict the first in my opinion. My first paragraph suggest that I feel Federer has greater improvements in him than Nadal despite the age difference. Whilst my second paragraph shows examples of players that have improved greatly at an older age.

[/QUOTE]I agree with your general sentiments, but in Rafa's case, I think a lot of people believe he will get better because till now, most of his important results have been on clay. Consider that at 3 of the 4 slams, he has never advanced beyond the 4th round. He has the athleticism and mental fortitude already, and seems very determined to improve on his weaker surfaces, so I think it's definitely possible for him to get better[QUOTE]

I definitely think that Nadal will have better results at the slams than last year, but I don't it's because he improved as a player, but rather due to him being unlucky the previous year. Last year he was unfortunate to run into two players on fire that have the perfect game to beat him on a fast surface. When I see Nadal this year I see a player that has improved his touch at the net and a slightly better serve. When I look at Federer I see a player, who also has improved his volleys, improved his backhand drop shot, improved his second serve and his backhand overall. This and perhaps some bias in my support for Federer lends me to think that he just might have even more improvements in store.

jacobhiggins
04-26-2006, 03:00 AM
Nadal is good, especially on clay, but talent wise he's not greater then Federer or Sampras and I don't think he will ever be.

Federer is the best on every surface but clay and is second best on clay. Nadal is best on clay and other surfaces he's good but not as good as Federer or some other players.

Physically I don't think Nadal will last as long as Federer and I think Federer is going to improve while Nadal will improve, I don't think he's going to become as good as people think he is or he will become that much better.

Federer has a good chance to break Pete's record and becoming the greatest player of all time, Nadal will never be as dominate as Federer and while the FO is great, Wimby is the biggest one of them all and is recongized as the Superbowl of tennis!

hitchhiker
04-26-2006, 06:56 AM
this era is weak. i know people don't like to hear this but the competition for federer and nadal on grass/clay is non existant which makes them look better then they actually are.

name 5 good grass court players these days

name 5 good clay court players these days (i.e consistent)

zicofirol
04-26-2006, 07:25 AM
This post is ridiculous, Nadal does not have the game to win a major oother than RG he might sneek in a AO but he wont come close on grass or at the US open, like Blake proved last year, any power player that gets nadal on a fast surface will beat him. Ljubicic was beating him easily last year in Madrid until he ran out of gas in the 3rd (he had just come from getting to master series final the week before). The win over agassi was impressive but I dont think he can beat good fast court players consistently in a grand slam.

A_Skywalker
04-26-2006, 08:20 AM
This post is ridiculous, Nadal does not have the game to win a major oother than RG he might sneek in a AO but he wont come close on grass or at the US open, like Blake proved last year, any power player that gets nadal on a fast surface will beat him. Ljubicic was beating him easily last year in Madrid until he ran out of gas in the 3rd (he had just come from getting to master series final the week before). The win over agassi was impressive but I dont think he can beat good fast court players consistently in a grand slam.

He's just 19 , what do you want from him ? How do you know he will not come close on US open or grass , he reached 3rd round on Wimbledon when he was 17(seventeen) and he lost it in 5 sets if I am correct . A little training on that surface and everything will come good for Rafa

bokehlicious
04-26-2006, 10:09 AM
this era is weak. i know people don't like to hear this but the competition for federer and nadal on grass/clay is non existant which makes them look better then they actually are.

name 5 good grass court players these days

name 5 good clay court players these days (i.e consistent)

Federer and Nadal would have made others look weak in any era. The underdogs are better nowadays than anytime else. But there are two aliens right now, unfortunately for the rest of the field.

oz_boz
04-26-2006, 10:26 AM
If a Fed/Sampras comparison is premature, what can you say about bringing up Nadal in the discussion? But OK, he belongs to the best teens of all time.

hitchhiker
04-26-2006, 10:37 AM
Federer and Nadal would have made others look weak in any era. The underdogs are better nowadays than anytime else.

what underdogs?? coria can make QF of a masters while serving 50 double faults per match ffs. is he a alien as well?

ljubicic makes semis of any masters (got injured in monte carlo). another alien?

i cant wait until one of the younger guys begins to play well and dominate this weak field as well, then there will be 3 aliens.

Gulliver
04-26-2006, 11:06 AM
I'm always curious when people quote ages. I think this is the least important factor because of the differing rate of development of individuals both mentally and physically, and only comes into play when assessing the likely longevity of a career ( or to compare records at certain ages). In tennis, experience going hand in hand with a fast rate of mental and physical development (+ talent, obviously) will see excellent results at an early age.

Nadal has talent, excellent development and experience. He turned pro in 2001 and has already played 183 matches. Gasquet (same age) turned pro in 2002 and has played 99 matches. So Gasquet, at age 19, is certainly not as good as Nadal in achievement because he lacks the same development and experience. I'd give him the nod on talent, though.

Federer, too, at 19, had the talent and was getting the experience, but lacked strong physical and mental development, and only started to come good on all fronts at age 22. Gasquet might be the same. And Nadal might well be unstoppable at 22 with even more experience, but who knows?

nobama
04-26-2006, 12:00 PM
Federer, too, at 19, had the talent and was getting the experience, but lacked strong physical and mental development, and only started to come good on all fronts at age 22. Gasquet might be the same. And Nadal might well be unstoppable at 22 with even more experience, but who knows?That's why I think this thread is silly because we don't know and it's all just a guess. Appreciate the success Nadal is now having but nobody knows what will happen in the future. I'm sure back in 2001-2002 nobody thought Federer would have 7 slam titles just a few years later. Let's come back in a few years and see where Nadal is at before proclaiming his immortality.

Purple Rainbow
05-05-2009, 12:42 PM
Three years later, time to bump this thread.

Comparisons still invalid?

christallh24
05-05-2009, 01:57 PM
Nice bump!

Still to early to call, imo.

rafa_maniac
05-05-2009, 03:41 PM
oh come on! :o

Im rafa fan, but I honestly doubt that he will be able to win someday Wimbledon.

given his clay orientation, he would need a hell of an adaptation to do well on grass, difficult to do a great clay court season in these conditions, and he needs the clay points for his ranking.
Forget it.


Right now I think it is best to think of Nadal as a "souped-up" Muster.

I hate it when people think that just, because Nadal is 19 he still has lots of room for improvement, because infact I think Federer still has greater room for improvement at 24 than Nadal.

It would be great to see Federer vs Nadal in grass. But that won't happen in the next years. Why? Because Nadal needs a miracle to get into a grass final...

Conclusion:

Federer's worst surface is clay: He's the 2nd best player there.

Nadal's worst surface is grass: He doesn't even belong in the top 20 in this surface.

Federer > Nadal

Nadal will improve, I don't think he's going to become as good as people think he is or he will become that much better.

This post is ridiculous, Nadal does not have the game to win a major oother than RG he might sneek in a AO but he wont come close on grass or at the US open.

Nadal might well be unstoppable at 22 with even more experience, but who knows?

Awesome bump :worship:

kafemotor
05-05-2009, 03:55 PM
Three years later, time to bump this thread.

Comparisons still invalid?

where have u been? Bump in time...

I'm always curious when people quote ages. I think this is the least important factor because of the differing rate of development of individuals both mentally and physically, and only comes into play when assessing the likely longevity of a career ( or to compare records at certain ages). In tennis, experience going hand in hand with a fast rate of mental and physical development (+ talent, obviously) will see excellent results at an early age.

Nadal has talent, excellent development and experience. He turned pro in 2001 and has already played 183 matches. Gasquet (same age) turned pro in 2002 and has played 99 matches. So Gasquet, at age 19, is certainly not as good as Nadal in achievement because he lacks the same development and experience. I'd give him the nod on talent, though.

Federer, too, at 19, had the talent and was getting the experience, but lacked strong physical and mental development, and only started to come good on all fronts at age 22. Gasquet might be the same. And Nadal might well be unstoppable at 22 with even more experience, but who knows?

I love this one...

christallh24
05-05-2009, 04:04 PM
rafa_maniac, how breathtakingly wrong were some folks, huh?

But, that Gulliver, was pretty much right on the money.

guptaji
05-05-2009, 04:25 PM
Three years later, time to bump this thread.

Comparisons still invalid?

:worship: You've got some vision.. :worship:

Please tell us what will be the status of tennis world in 2012.

Chair Umpire
05-05-2009, 07:44 PM
I love thread bumping. :banana:

MariaV
05-05-2009, 07:53 PM
Three years later, time to bump this thread.

Comparisons still invalid?

Now there's a bump! :worship: :bowdown:

salut235
05-05-2009, 08:15 PM
Wow! what a bump! lol

Commander Data
05-05-2009, 08:39 PM
Still invalid. Pete and Fed career had two features: First they won Slams on three different surfaces, showing they are not 1-dimensional, second they have a high Slam count. Nadal has now achieved the first criteria, now needs to at least surpass 10 Slams, in order to be in the discussion.

rafa_maniac
05-05-2009, 08:43 PM
First they won Slams on three different surfaces.

No, only Nadal of the three has done that. :D

habibko
05-05-2009, 09:14 PM
he sure is on his way, but he needs to win at least 13 GS to start discussing it more seriously.

Commander Data
05-05-2009, 09:52 PM
No, only Nadal of the three has done that. :D

:)

Har-Tru
05-05-2009, 09:53 PM
Still invalid. Pete and Fed career had two features: First they won Slams on three different surfaces, showing they are not 1-dimensional

is this supposed to be some kind of bad joke?

kafemotor
05-05-2009, 09:56 PM
Still invalid. Pete and Fed career had two features: First they won Slams on three different surfaces, showing they are not 1-dimensional, second they have a high Slam count. Nadal has now achieved the first criteria, now needs to at least surpass 10 Slams, in order to be in the discussion.

owch, where is my mirror now? :p nadal even doesnt need the second for validity of this thread as the OP talking about young age and achievement:angel:

tennisfan444
05-05-2009, 10:02 PM
Lets see if Nadal can win half of Feds number and then we'll talk. I doubt he'll get close

rafa_maniac
05-05-2009, 10:05 PM
Lets see if Nadal can win half of Feds number and then we'll talk. I doubt he'll get close

Half of Fed's number.... of Slams? 6/7? :retard:

kafemotor
05-05-2009, 10:08 PM
Lets see if Nadal can win half of Feds number and then we'll talk. I doubt he'll get close

Im tired... ill take my pils:wavey:

Har-Tru
05-05-2009, 10:15 PM
Lets see if Nadal can win half of Feds number and then we'll talk. I doubt he'll get close

This is getting really weird.

kingfederer
05-05-2009, 11:29 PM
if u want i can post alot more records that nadal has no one else has. plus why does borg and laver have 11 slams and they are in the discussion and nadal has to get 13 slams to be in it? if nadal gets 10 slams, he is in the discussion. nadal's worry is his injuries, vbut if he has any brains whatsoever he will only play slams and masters series in a couple of years.

Arkulari
05-06-2009, 12:26 AM
once Rafa is on double digits, he'll be in the "GOAT" discussion, pointless as it is :rolleyes:

MisterQ
05-06-2009, 01:02 AM
Masterful bump. :worship:

In 2006 Nadal was already becoming a legend of clay, but I admit to being skeptical back then of his ability to succeed on all surfaces. It's amazing how he has continued to improve his game.

GlennMirnyi
05-06-2009, 01:35 AM
This thread is pure bullshit.

Albop
05-06-2009, 01:44 AM
what underdogs?? coria can make QF of a masters while serving 50 double faults per match ffs. is he a alien as well?

ljubicic makes semis of any masters (got injured in monte carlo). another alien?

i cant wait until one of the younger guys begins to play well and dominate this weak field as well, then there will be 3 aliens.

Great post that still is valid
Only that now we have 4 "aliens" :rolleyes:

crude oil
05-06-2009, 02:00 AM
nadal is for sure amazing but i wouldnt write federer off yet. it looks bleak at the moment but federer still has the game.

with a little confidence boost, he could become a huge threat again.

as good as nadal is right now, he wasnt the kind of monster federer was in his prime although nadal still has time to get to that level and possibly even surpass it.

LinkMage
05-06-2009, 02:06 AM
This thread is pure bullshit.

x2

guptaji
05-06-2009, 03:36 AM
This thread is pure bullshit.

Gotta love your logic.

kingfederer
05-06-2009, 06:48 AM
This thread is pure bullshit.

mullmug isnt involved here gelnnmug, ur in the wrong place sook.

kingfederer
05-06-2009, 06:49 AM
x2

wrong place linkmug

vamosinator
05-06-2009, 07:43 AM
nadal is for sure amazing but i wouldnt write federer off yet. it looks bleak at the moment but federer still has the game.

with a little confidence boost, he could become a huge threat again.

as good as nadal is right now, he wasnt the kind of monster federer was in his prime although nadal still has time to get to that level and possibly even surpass it.

Well , Nadal looks more likely to get the Calendar Year Grand Slam than Federer ever did, so I don't see any reason why Federer would be seen as more monsterizational.

FairWeatherFan
05-06-2009, 07:50 AM
Sampras actually played at a time where the surfaces were different, so there's no comparison.

kingfederer
05-06-2009, 08:35 AM
Sampras actually played at a time where the surfaces were different, so there's no comparison.

ur a conspiracy nut arent u?

vamosinator
05-06-2009, 08:39 AM
Sampras actually played at a time where the surfaces were different, so there's no comparison.

Your a conspiracy nut like in that Julia Roberts Mel Gibson movie.

Erica86
05-06-2009, 08:52 AM
Hahahahaha. This thread. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Are you still laughing? Or you cannot answer my question because you shot yourself?

Hahahahaha. Your comment 3 years ago. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Erica86
05-06-2009, 08:54 AM
x2

Bullshit is the comments that both of you make.

Quadruple Tree
05-06-2009, 08:57 AM
Are you still laughing? Or you cannot answer my question because you shot yourself?

Hahahahaha. Your comment 3 years ago. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

You were right. 6 Slams and less than a year as #1. No one has ever done that before. GOAT no doubt.

General Suburbia
05-06-2009, 09:09 AM
Hahahahaha. This thread. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Hahahahaha. This post.

But seriously, no one but the most incurable of optimists and fanboys (and girls) would have believed Nadal to be in the position he is in right now. I still find it weird that he's the current Wimbledon champion. Only time will tell how much further he'll go.

vamosinator
05-06-2009, 09:15 AM
Nadal has a lot of improvement coming up, his forehand is only just starting to be hit flat, it'll improve its new trajectory as the years go by. Think of how long he was hitting with high net clearance and max topspin, he's adjusting to hardcourt tennis but this is just the start of the transformation. And after that the serve may have some tinkering coming up me think.

kingfederer
05-06-2009, 10:23 AM
You were right. 6 Slams and less than a year as #1. No one has ever done that before. GOAT no doubt.

add 'at 22 years old' and he is definitely on GOAT pace.

marcRD
05-06-2009, 11:45 AM
add 'at 22 years old' and he is definitely on GOAT pace.

I wonder if Nadal can play at this level when he is 26, I think he has 3-4 years to win 9 slams. Difficult, but not impossible. Even if he wins lets say 13 slams and Federer gets to 15 you could debate Nadal is greater than Federer, specialy if Nadal gets the USOPEN.

Let me see, I think Nadal will get to 9 RG, 2 wimbledon, 2 AO.

Federer I think will end with 7 wimbledon, 6 USopen, 3 Australian open and 0 RG, that is 16 slams.

So Nadal will have 13 slams, if I am right it will not be GOAT material because he will have won so few of slams outside RG.

You need to remember that most players, in fact every player I can think of who peaked really early in their career fade away somewhere between 23 and 25.

Borg (didnt fade away but really didnt have it in him to play more tennis), Becker, Wilander, Mcenroe, Hewitt and Chang are some of the players from the top of my head.

Maybe Nadal is about to break this rule, who knows? The odds are against him, he should soon feel very tired in his whole body, he cant lose a step as that would be catastrophic for his game.

Players who peaked really late like Lendl, Laver, Agassi (peaked at 28) could play well into their 30s.

Also Nadal had to fight like hell to get his grand slams outside RG, it wont be possible for him to easily grab those trophies like it was for Sampras and Federer.

vamosinator
05-06-2009, 03:59 PM
Nadal hardly drops a set in grand slams, the only time he truly had to 'fight like hell' was vs Verdasco.

Arkulari
05-06-2009, 04:01 PM
yeah, he didn't need to fight like hell on Wimby '07, '08 or the AO '09
who says more than 4 hours of match and five sets are fought, those titles were just a piece of cake for him :rolleyes:

GlennMirnyi
05-06-2009, 05:53 PM
Bullshit is the comments that both of you make.

Bullshit is your second name.

Hahahahaha. This post.

But seriously, no one but the most incurable of optimists and fanboys (and girls) would have believed Nadal to be in the position he is in right now. I still find it weird that he's the current Wimbledon champion. Only time will tell how much further he'll go.

Exactly.

Nadal has a lot of improvement coming up, his forehand is only just starting to be hit flat, it'll improve its new trajectory as the years go by. Think of how long he was hitting with high net clearance and max topspin, he's adjusting to hardcourt tennis but this is just the start of the transformation. And after that the serve may have some tinkering coming up me think.

Nutcake. Fruitcake.

Absolutely deranged.

Nadal hardly drops a set in grand slams, the only time he truly had to 'fight like hell' was vs Verdasco.

Tennis didn't exist before 2009.

:rolleyes:

marcRD
05-06-2009, 07:11 PM
Nadal hardly drops a set in grand slams, the only time he truly had to 'fight like hell' was vs Verdasco.

His finals so far:

Wimby 06: There was one 5 set match, but that draw was too easy.
Wimby 07: 5 set match against Söderling, 5 set match against Youzhny, 5 set match against Federer
Wimby 08: 5 set match against Federer in the final
AO 09: 5 set match against Verdasco+5 set match against Federer

I expect there will be epics against Djoke and Murray in semifinals aswell. Nadal wont be able to fight his way to one grand slam after the other, it just doesnt work that way. I am amazed he won that final against Federer after the 5 set marathon against Verdasco, I couldnt belive my eyes. But that wont happen too many times. Nadal needs to avoid 5 set match all the way to the final to have a really good shot at winning grand slams.

Serenidad
05-06-2009, 07:20 PM
Even though he is on track or well ahead, anything can happen. Nothing is 100% for sure look at how Federer's wheels are falling off. Nadal is human his decline will come inevitably like Federer's did.

FedFan_2007
05-06-2009, 08:14 PM
His finals so far:

Wimby 06: There was one 5 set match, but that draw was too easy.
Wimby 07: 5 set match against Söderling, 5 set match against Youzhny, 5 set match against Federer
Wimby 08: 5 set match against Federer in the final
AO 09: 5 set match against Verdasco+5 set match against Federer

I expect there will be epics against Djoke and Murray in semifinals aswell. Nadal wont be able to fight his way to one grand slam after the other, it just doesnt work that way. I am amazed he won that final against Federer after the 5 set marathon against Verdasco, I couldnt belive my eyes. But that wont happen too many times. Nadal needs to avoid 5 set match all the way to the final to have a really good shot at winning grand slams.

Don't bet against him. Nadal has all-time fitness level and he can fight his way to several more hardcourt grand slam titles. Grass is easy since no one challenges him before the final.

Roddickominator
05-06-2009, 08:15 PM
Seriously what garbage....WTA-quality thread other than the always great hitchhiker and a few others.

Rafa#Uno:-)
05-06-2009, 08:33 PM
a lot of people says that nadal will retire early early because of his style of tennis that it is too physical....
well if you flip the coin nadal is more physical than the others so it fits him...
to speculate about how many slams he and roger will end with is pathetic

right now is the only thing we have

and right now Rafa has 15000 points and ranks number one. That is the only thing that matters.
Fed is 5000 points after. He has to do something.

Albop
05-06-2009, 11:53 PM
wrong place linkmug

Wrong life jackass.

christallh24
05-07-2009, 12:12 AM
marcRD, okay, we get it, Rafa will never be GOAT! Good! As no one will ever win this agrument definitively. I'm happy he's just in the argument to begin with.

kafemotor
05-07-2009, 05:27 AM
His finals so far:

Wimby 06: There was one 5 set match, but that draw was too easy.
Wimby 07: 5 set match against Söderling, 5 set match against Youzhny, 5 set match against Federer
Wimby 08: 5 set match against Federer in the final
AO 09: 5 set match against Verdasco+5 set match against Federer

I expect there will be epics against Djoke and Murray in semifinals aswell. Nadal wont be able to fight his way to one grand slam after the other, it just doesnt work that way. I am amazed he won that final against Federer after the 5 set marathon against Verdasco, I couldnt belive my eyes. But that wont happen too many times. Nadal needs to avoid 5 set match all the way to the final to have a really good shot at winning grand slams.

AO is very early in the calender and Nadal just spent a lot of time rest coz he didnt have to play TMS last year. Beside, it was Fed he faced and in his 1st AO final with his good progress every year... Before Vedasco, he had beaten everyone quite easily... The truth is, he is extremely fit and improving.

vamosinator
05-07-2009, 06:28 AM
Djokovic, Murray and Federer will retire long before Nadal. Those guys have had back and hip complaints this year, and that is an old man's injury, so imagine when they're truly old they won't last long.

Whereas tendinitis is a young man's injury or more so condition than injury that just requires rest at the end of each year. Jordan had knee and wrist tendinitis from age 28-40, Williams sisters constantly too and outlasted everyone of their generation.

3 of the top 4 players in the world are having trouble with the rigors of this tour, Nadal isn't one of them.

If Nadal only has to play 2 long matches per slam and one of them is the error-prone Federer encounters, that isn't a challenge physically for him.

rocketassist
05-07-2009, 03:37 PM
hitchhiker talks the most sense in here.

paseo
09-13-2010, 12:33 AM
Now, this is the true question that should be asked before discussing about GOAT.

According to their fans, Nadal will have about 11-12 GS by the end of 2011. So, this is a fair comparison.

Both are clutch.
Both are mentally strong.
And, according to their fans, both are better then the supposed GOAT, Fed.

Now, who do you think is greater?

Sham Kay
09-13-2010, 12:42 AM
Dunno about right this instant. Nadal isnt anywhere near finished with his career. However, Nadal seems destined for greatness beyond what Sampras achieved.

BigJohn
09-13-2010, 12:47 AM
A GOAT runner-up pageant?


This can only produce page after page of quality posts.

Sophocles
09-13-2010, 12:48 AM
Sampras has many more slams & many more weeks at Number 1. This is a non-question. Ask it again when Nadal retires.

Of course, in Rafatroll logic, it all comes down to whether Davydenko is greater than Krajicek.

Mjau!
09-13-2010, 12:53 AM
Sampras has many more slams & many more weeks at Number 1. This is a non-question. Ask it again when Nadal retires.

Of course, in Rafatroll logic, it all comes down to whether Davydenko is greater than Krajicek.

...Rafa having more slams than Pete at age 24, thus guaranteeing that he will win more slams than Petros in the future.

Sophocles
09-13-2010, 12:55 AM
...Rafa having more slams than Pete at age 24, thus guaranteeing that he will win more slams than Petros in the future.

And let's not forget the Olympics. Worth 7 slams at least.

LaFuria
09-13-2010, 12:59 AM
This topic can only end in tears.

BigJohn
09-13-2010, 01:01 AM
Let me be the first to say that Sampras won Rome in 94, also worth a few of today's' slams, thus cementing his status as one of the all time greats on clay.

SheepleBuster
09-13-2010, 01:03 AM
Nadal or Sampras? It's like saying who's better: Roddick or Agassi. One is a legend. The other only a clay courter.

BigJohn
09-13-2010, 01:04 AM
Nadal or Sampras? It's like saying who's better: Roddick or Agassi. One is a legend. The other only a clay courter.

Roddick is a clay courter?

Sophocles
09-13-2010, 01:10 AM
Roddick is a clay courter?

He's won Houston. Almost as impressive as Pete's historic victory in Rome.

paseo
09-13-2010, 01:12 AM
You guys are hilarious :lol:

But, come on. Give your opinions about the topic.

BigJohn
09-13-2010, 01:29 AM
Nadal needs to pass Sampras slam count to be considered greater.

Should they be tied, then all hell breaks lose. What is the tiebreaker? Weeks #1? Weeks #2? Career GS? (should Nadal achieve it) Hotness of trophy wife? Chest hair?

Looks like the male pattern baldness might be tied when Nadal retires, so we can't really use that.

As we speak, Sampras no doubt.

oranges
09-13-2010, 01:33 AM
You guys are hilarious :lol:

But, come on. Give your opinions about the topic.

What opinions do you want other than 'wait till Nadal ends his career unless you want anyone sensible to vote Sampras'.

Action Jackson
09-13-2010, 01:38 AM
He's won Houston. Almost as impressive as Pete's historic victory in Rome.

More so.

emotion
09-13-2010, 01:41 AM
An odd opinion I have: Agassi was GOAT contender before Fed, but now is barely top 5...
He had a great case against Sampras, but none vs Federer

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
09-13-2010, 01:44 AM
this place is offically hell

now all things sacred are being ripped apart by rabid nadal fans

untill nadal starts losing you will see every possible record up for grabs in the rafatard threads

why not just say that rafa woulda bagled peak laver and sampras put together

tennismaster1978
09-13-2010, 02:03 AM
federer

sco
09-13-2010, 02:29 AM
This thread is soooooo premature. Bump if Nadal has 14 GS. Hopefully, more than 3 of them will be non-French Open titles.

It'll be interesting if Nadal reaches 11 and is compared to Borg. Borg won when Wimbledon grass what truly fast - not like now and whatever ball they're using to slow down play.

viruzzz
09-13-2010, 02:30 AM
No idea... Both are very good and talented players.

SheepleBuster
09-13-2010, 02:49 AM
Roddick is a clay courter?

I was talking about Nadal. Get real man. Roddick can't play on clay, water, or anything else.

Matt01
09-13-2010, 03:02 AM
Let me be the first to say that Sampras won Rome in 94, also worth a few of today's' slams, thus cementing his status as one of the all time greats on clay.


He also won Kitzbühel. Only the true clay court masters are able to win this tournament. :worship:

Johnny Groove
09-13-2010, 03:10 AM
Sampras and it is not even close.

Come on now.

zeluvaa
09-13-2010, 03:26 AM
Nadal is greater than Sampras, Borg, Laver and Federer combined. :shrug:

Mugpras is still a better clay court player though, after all he did win Rome :rocker2:

deebyeah
09-13-2010, 03:29 AM
are you kidding me? of courece sampras is greater...

Serenidad
09-13-2010, 03:35 AM
Well we all know the truth.

Forehander
09-13-2010, 04:29 AM
Sampras is still better at the moment of course, but if Nadal continues the way he does he'll definitelys surpass Pete. And if them two were to play against each other Sampras doesn't stand a chance against Nadal. If they were to play 10 matches, I'd put money on Nadal for all 10.

Filo V.
09-13-2010, 04:52 AM
Nadal=8 GS

Sampras=14 GS

Next question.

oranges
09-13-2010, 05:10 AM
Sampras is still better at the moment of course, but if Nadal continues the way he does he'll definitelys surpass Pete. And if them two were to play against each other Sampras doesn't stand a chance against Nadal. If they were to play 10 matches, I'd put money on Nadal for all 10.

I'm guessing you've put all 10 on clay

BigJohn
09-13-2010, 11:32 AM
I'm guessing you've put all 10 on clay

That's what I thought too, but there is another factor: is Rafa injured?

Because no matter the surface, a Rafa loss is only possible in case of injury. We tend to forget about that.

Ben.
09-13-2010, 11:46 AM
Why not cut out the smarmy shit and compare him to players also with 8 slams, obviously Sampras is way ahead.

tennis2tennis
09-13-2010, 11:47 AM
http://media.ebaumsworld.com/2006/07/sucks2.jpg

born_on_clay
09-13-2010, 12:21 PM
Sampras BY FAR
It is supposed to change in the future

latso
09-13-2010, 01:56 PM
For the moment - Sampras

No thread this

MacTheKnife
09-13-2010, 02:07 PM
11 picking nadal.. :lol: Is it delusion or drugs..

tennishero
09-13-2010, 02:11 PM
in a few years, nadal.

Quadruple Tree
09-13-2010, 02:38 PM
11 picking nadal.. :lol: Is it delusion or drugs..

It's actually just Rafa=FedKilla and his 10 (make that 12) alts.

Billups85
09-13-2010, 02:38 PM
Of course, Pete is greater than Rafa ... now. I'm sure it will change in the future.

Chopin-lover
09-13-2010, 02:57 PM
I agree with most people. For now, Sampras had a better career. It can well change in the future.

Ackms421
09-13-2010, 03:05 PM
Sampras and Nadal are my two all-time favorites. I still gotta give this to Pete at this point. He's done more. Not, *a lot* more, just because of Rafa's superior versatility, but he's still done more. Seven Wimbledon's and all that time at #1 still put him over the top. Surely if Nadal gets into the 13-14 range though, he would statistically and philosophically be better.

paseo
09-13-2010, 04:20 PM
Come on. Nadal vs Sampras is too far away? Fed is above Sampras, but posters here compare Fed vs Nadal all the time. And many here are convinced that Nadal will reach double digit on his slam count.

Okay, if you think their achievements are not yet comparable, what about their game?

FormerRafaFan
09-13-2010, 04:23 PM
Dunno about right this instant. Nadal isnt anywhere near finished with his career. However, Nadal seems destined for greatness beyond what Sampras achieved.

This. :yeah:

I'd definitely put Sampras ahead of Nadal as of today though. And nobody can beat the real GOAT, Federer.

Fedicilous
09-13-2010, 04:27 PM
Probably the most moronic thread of all time.

But it can well change in the future.

FormerRafaFan
09-13-2010, 04:27 PM
Nadal needs to pass Sampras slam count to be considered greater.

Should they be tied, then all hell breaks lose. What is the tiebreaker? Weeks #1? Weeks #2? Career GS? (should Nadal achieve it) Hotness of trophy wife? Chest hair?

Looks like the male pattern baldness might be tied when Nadal retires, so we can't really use that.

As we speak, Sampras no doubt.

LOL :lol:

PistolSampras
09-13-2010, 04:30 PM
We will see who's greater in the future when both of them are retired, now it's pointless to argue about that.

Who can tell if Nadal can hold on his game 4 or 5 years more, his knees may break before that (or not...)

Who can tell us if Nadal doesn't break all the records and ends his career with 17+ GS 25+MS1000 and a lot of weeks as n.1?

We don't know what can happen.

The only thing we know is what Sampras (who is retired) has achieved during his career.

-286 weeks as n.1 of the world
-14 Grand Slam titles (5USO, 2AO, 7WB)
-11 MS1000
- 5 Master Cup
__________________

64 titles

Sampras imo played in a harder era than now, this along his dissease (talasemia) was one of the main reasons that explain why he couldn't win the French.

He had to fough excelent clay court players as Kuerten in his late years, Courier, Muster, Bruguera...

Also his game was not the best for clay, his serve loses power in clay and he can't serve and volley the whole match, his backhand was a trouble.

Even with all the mentioned before, he could beat some ex-French champions and go to the semi-final against Kafelnikov, but Sampras was exhausted and finally lost the match.

Nadal is a great player , he has a great phisical condition, great attitude, he loves the sport, he gives it all on the court, he has a great forehand, the best topspin forehand I've ever seen, he is like Sampras, a man with steel balls, he has a champions mind, he's mentally really strong.

Nadal is a player that has played in different courts than Sampras, Sampras had to play in faster courts than Nadal, in Nadal's era there isn't as much difference as there was in Sampras'

Anyway, they both are simply fantastic players, I don't like Nadal's game too much, but he's a champion, by the other hand, I love Sampras, and I don't care if Nadal achieves more or less than him.

I don't think we can call anyone the greatest player of all time, we can't prove that, we can't put Federer vs Laver, or Borg vs Nadal.

To me, there are only the best players of a determinated Era, in the 90s the greatest was Sampras in the 00s was Federer and so on.

Ah, sorry if I make any mistake with the languaje..., I'm doing my best to write as good as I can

finishingmove
09-13-2010, 04:32 PM
I don't use this smiley often but.. :retard:

paseo
09-13-2010, 04:53 PM
I don't use this smiley often but.. :retard:

Why? They're both great players.

Chair Umpire
09-13-2010, 04:54 PM
Sampras never did a shit on clay.

dombrfc
09-13-2010, 10:15 PM
aca1111, Billups85, Borntofight, Chair Umpire, Foxy, Gladiator, Mansave_75, maxardy, NadalPhan, paseo, SaFed2005, Scotso, Shambritfan, ssin, supermarioo, tennishero, ufiors, viruzzz


:o

Waterfox
09-14-2010, 02:33 AM
Has Sampras reached the Final of RG?

oh wait!!

NO!!!

BigJohn
09-14-2010, 02:36 AM
Has Sampras reached the Final of RG?

oh wait!!

NO!!!

Has Nadal won more than 10 Slams?

Waterfox
09-14-2010, 02:39 AM
Has Nadal won more than 10 Slams?

Has Nadal Retired?

In that case, HE WILL!

BigJohn
09-14-2010, 02:40 AM
Has Nadal Retired?

In that case, HE WILL!

This poll is not about the future...

Waterfox
09-14-2010, 02:42 AM
This poll is not about the future...

So its all about the pass now is it?

:o

Twisting the time machinge!!
:o

BigJohn
09-14-2010, 02:46 AM
It's about right now, IS is present tense...

Waterfox
09-14-2010, 02:52 AM
It's about right now, IS is present tense...

Right now,

I dont see Sampras playing mr. FitJohn.

BigJohn
09-14-2010, 02:54 AM
Right now,

I dont see Sampras playing mr. FitJohn.

Sorry, I did not realize you were not that bright...

Waterfox
09-14-2010, 02:57 AM
Sorry, I did not realize you were not that bright...

Its alright, I accept your apologies mr. FitJohn!

BigJohn
09-14-2010, 02:57 AM
Its alright, I accept your apologies mr. FitJohn!

:lol:

SetSampras
09-14-2010, 03:07 AM
Nadal shows that is indeed EASIER to get a career slam in the 00s. Would Nadal even come close to sniffing a career slam in the 90s under those conditions? hardly

BigJohn
09-14-2010, 03:25 AM
Nadal shows that is indeed EASIER to get a career slam in the 00s. Would Nadal even come close to sniffing a career slam in the 90s under those conditions? hardly

I am hardly surprised...

paseo
09-14-2010, 03:44 AM
Nadal has the career slam now. This comparison is justifiable now, no? :D

BigJohn
09-14-2010, 03:49 AM
Nadal has the career slam now. This comparison is justifiable now, no? :D

For the moment, the answer is still in your question.

Filo V.
09-14-2010, 04:14 AM
Sampras=14 GS

Nadal=9 GS

Next question.

paseo
09-14-2010, 09:49 AM
Sampras=14 GS

Nadal=9 GS

Next question.

Career Slam?

Foxy
09-14-2010, 09:55 AM
Career Slam?

Golden Career Slam? ;)

Mimi
09-14-2010, 09:56 AM
still my old Pete:p

Topspindoctor
09-14-2010, 09:57 AM
RG+W+USO in the same year
2 channel slams
career golden slam
14-7 record vs former GOAT
18 MS1000 titles

Nadal > Sampras.

Allez
09-14-2010, 10:04 AM
Pete who ?

B787
09-14-2010, 10:07 AM
...Rafa having more slams than Pete at age 24, thus guaranteeing that he will win more slams than Petros in the future.

Hewitt had more GS's when he was 20 than Federer. Does he make him better in terms of your opinion.

When Dull one wins 16 or more then come here and speak nonsence.

Purple Rainbow
09-14-2010, 10:42 AM
Bump, bump.

Nadal has come a long way and now really is in GOAT contention.

Lopez
09-14-2010, 11:33 AM
Nobody rates Agassi higher than Pete and Andre had only 1 GS less than Nadal with a bunch of other finals in his "weaker Slams" RG and Wimbledon.

Lopez
09-14-2010, 11:43 AM
We'll see.

Federer won so many Slams so quickly that the age argument is losing its potency.

At the end of 2010: Nadal has turned 24 and has won 9 Slams.
At the end of 2006: Roger has turned 25 and has won 9 Slams.
At the end of 2007: Roger has turned 26 and has won 12 Slams.
At the end of 2011: Nadal has turned 25, Slams won ? (my guess is 11)

So Roger is actually only one year "behind" using this logic and unless Rafa wins majors as quickly as Roger this trend will change at some point.

oranges
09-14-2010, 11:56 AM
Nadal has the career slam now. This comparison is justifiable now, no? :D

I'm guesing you think Agassi's achievments also surpassed Sampras'?

born_on_clay
09-14-2010, 12:01 PM
still Sampras but still it is to change in the future :)

vn01
09-14-2010, 12:03 PM
The thread is interesting. Sampras is greater.

born_on_clay
09-14-2010, 12:11 PM
everything takes time :)

Sophocles
09-14-2010, 12:22 PM
We'll see.

Federer won so many Slams so quickly that the age argument is losing its potency.

At the end of 2010: Nadal has turned 24 and has won 9 Slams.
At the end of 2006: Roger has turned 25 and has won 9 Slams.
At the end of 2007: Roger has turned 26 and has won 12 Slams.
At the end of 2011: Nadal has turned 25, Slams won ? (my guess is 11)

So Roger is actually only one year "behind" using this logic and unless Rafa wins majors as quickly as Roger this trend will change at some point.

Exactly. People forget how quickly things change. When McEnroe won the U.S.O. in 1984 having comprehensively owned Connors & Lendl all year, nobody would have believed he would never win another slam. Right now it's hard to imagine Nadal losing in a slam. And it will remain hard to imagine, until he does. Which he will.

Swiss Mountain
09-14-2010, 12:24 PM
Nadal has to do 24 semi and 10 final of slam in a row, have great win-loss ratio, and stop giving up matches, and to beat the record of weeks at n°1.
GOAT? let me laugh! he's millions of years from it.

FairWeatherFan
09-14-2010, 12:28 PM
Laughable comparison. Nadal can never measure up even in the slightest way to the legend that was Sampras.

Myrre
09-14-2010, 05:18 PM
Don't feed the fanboys and girls.

NadalPhan
09-14-2010, 05:56 PM
aca1111, Billups85, Borntofight, Chair Umpire, Foxy, Gladiator, Mansave_75, maxardy, NadalPhan, paseo, SaFed2005, Scotso, Shambritfan, ssin, supermarioo, tennishero, ufiors, viruzzz


:o

I don't know why you brought my name on this, but I'm assuming it's because you think I have multiple ids and those other ids belong to me? If that's it, then no, they don't belong to me. Now if my name's here because you're assuming that I voted for Nadal, then you would be correct. I don't believe he's greater than Sampras though, it's just that bias got the best of me.

guga2120
09-14-2010, 05:57 PM
Rafa

oranges
09-14-2010, 06:00 PM
:lol: It's almost 50:50

MalwareDie
09-14-2010, 06:02 PM
I don't know why you brought my name on this, but I'm assuming it's because you think I have multiple ids and those other ids belong to me?

That wasn't it. There were 18 votes for Nadal at that time.

careergrandslam
09-14-2010, 06:05 PM
nadal is greater now.
no question in my mind.

BigJohn
09-15-2010, 03:50 AM
nadal is greater now.
no question in my mind.

Delirium?

paseo
09-15-2010, 03:59 AM
The USO10 title has jacked up Nadal votes here. It was a one-sided win for Sampras before, now it's almost even.

I knew it :D

Topspindoctor
09-15-2010, 04:01 AM
Samprass was an embarrassment in RG :o

Nadal proved he's a master of all surfaces. They are already equal IMO. If Nadal wins 2011 RG, he'll be above both Sampras and Borg.

BigJohn
09-15-2010, 04:02 AM
The USO10 title has jacked up Nadal votes here. It was a one-sided win for Sampras before, now it's almost even.

I knew it :D

It is called a knee jerk reaction...

out_here_grindin
09-15-2010, 04:03 AM
IF Nadal can win the Bangkok/Tokyo/Shanghai treble it will clip Sampras's legendary Rome win and he will surpass Pete

Mimi
09-15-2010, 04:07 AM
rafa has yet to win year end championship, which pete won 5 times:cool:

allpro
09-15-2010, 04:07 AM
pete.

at 11 nadal will surpass him due to his all surface excellence. sampras was worthless on clay :o

Mimi
09-15-2010, 04:18 AM
pete.

at 11 nadal will surpass him due to his all surface excellence. sampras was worthless on clay :o

yeah, beaten by Kafilokov (sorry i never can spell their names :o) in semin final of 1996 FO, otherwise he might at least get to the final :hysteric:

nastoff
09-15-2010, 04:19 AM
All those threads/polls that come up with all sorts of comparisons with different proclaimed GOATS are so funny.
Relax guys, lets wait a couple of more years before making those comparisons...Nadal himself wants to be modest and not set far-fetched goals but this is his way of saying "if I fail don't shoot the pianist"...of course he'll go for it. Come in 3 years from now he could have another 3 French titles, 2 more Wimbledons and 1 more hc title...Federer might win 1 more. Then we'd have Nadal at 15 and Federer at 17, still a long way to go with Rafa needing 3 more to surpass Federer at the age of 27.
So even the most positive of predictions show that it's not gonna be easy for Rafa. But he can definitely beat Sampras' record.

nastoff
09-15-2010, 04:24 AM
rafa has yet to win year end championship, which pete won 5 times:cool:

I know it's tough for Nadal to win that one and maybe he never will, but common, it's a joke compared to the majors... even Davydenko won that crap :p

allpro
09-15-2010, 04:28 AM
Come in 3 years from now he could have another 3 French titles, 2 more Wimbledons and 1 more hc title...Federer might win 1 more. Then we'd have Nadal at 14 and Federer at 17, still a long way to go with Rafa needing 3-4 more to surpass Federer at the age of 27.

regarding fed, if nadal stays within three and completes the double career slam (at least two of each major) + continues to dominate their h2h (ending up with something like 19-9), i think many will view that as sufficient.

Pirata.
09-15-2010, 04:49 AM
I know it's tough for Nadal to win that one and maybe he never will, but common, it's a joke compared to the majors... even Davydenko won that crap :p

Didn't used to be a joke. Long list of great winners like Federer, Hewitt, Nalby, Guga, Sampras, Becker, Agassi, Edberg, Lendl, McEnroe, Borg, Connors, Nastase, Vilas.

IMO, if Nadal never wins the YEC, that will be a serious mar on his record. All the GOAT contenders (aside from Laver) have won it at least twice, Fed and Sampras winning it at least four times.

The Magician
09-15-2010, 04:51 AM
*Brahmin, 2slik, Aaric, aca1111, Allez, Billups85, Borntofight, brunocitron, careergrandslam, Chair Umpire, chisenefrega, fester, Foxy, Gladiator, GreenCheese, guga2120, hansu, jenanun, lbj2009, Mansave_75, maxardy, Minn, Mohammad, NadalesDios, NadalPhan, nadal_slam_king, paseo, Pistolero, prafull, Primus, Rafa = Fed Killa, Romiking, SaFed2005, Scotso, Shambritfan, Sphrontanascier, ssin, supermarioo, tennisfaNo1, tennishero, Topspindoctor, tyruk14, ufiors, viruzzz, Waterfox

I will bet there are no more than 5 separate people behind all of these accounts :o Anyway, update your ignore lists, folks :angel:

LaFuria
09-15-2010, 04:54 AM
*Brahmin, 2slik, Aaric, aca1111, Allez, Billups85, Borntofight, brunocitron, careergrandslam, Chair Umpire, chisenefrega, fester, Foxy, Gladiator, GreenCheese, guga2120, hansu, jenanun, lbj2009, Mansave_75, maxardy, Minn, Mohammad, NadalesDios, NadalPhan, nadal_slam_king, paseo, Pistolero, prafull, Primus, Rafa = Fed Killa, Romiking, SaFed2005, Scotso, Shambritfan, Sphrontanascier, ssin, supermarioo, tennisfaNo1, tennishero, Topspindoctor, tyruk14, ufiors, viruzzz, Waterfox

I will bet there are no more than 5 separate people behind all of these accounts :o Anyway, update your ignore lists, folks :angel:

Good list but you forgot Vamos_Me_Rafa and allpro, and I'm sure there's more.

Good thing Start da Game is too hilarious to be fake.

The Magician
09-15-2010, 05:01 AM
Good list but you forgot Vamos_Me_Rafa and allpro, and I'm sure there's more.

Good thing Start da Game is too hilarious to be fake.

Start da Game probably thinks he is Nadull in an institution somewhere. He's banned for a few days, hope he doesn't hurt his handlers without the catharsis of MTF :o

BAMJ6
09-15-2010, 05:13 AM
Let me put it this way

Rafael Nadal = Andre Agassi if he beat Pete more often in head to head matchups
Roger Federer = Pete Sampras if he won French Open but failed to beat Agassi in h2h meetings

Like Agassi, Nadal has less total slams than his uber rival, and has all of them and the Gold Medal. Unlike Agassi, the reason Nadal doesn't have more slam wins is not because of his uber rival.

Nadal has only been denied 2 GS titles by Fed in the final
Andre has 90, 95, 99, and 02 slam wins denied by Pete


Like Sampras, Fed has led in total slams during their playing days and has no Gold Medal, Unlike Pete, he has all slams won and can't beat his uber rival

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
09-15-2010, 06:21 AM
this is BS

pete on a fast court does NOT get broken

nadal's return of serve is a joke

pete would break nadal's girly serve

pete destroys nadal on anything that isn't medium slow

end.of

pete wasn't a pussy like federer when it came to clutch

recognise

marvin0211
09-15-2010, 07:35 AM
this thread has a lot more fedtard posters bashing nadal and a lot of nadal fans saying sampras is greater.
me too Sampras is greater as of now but who can predict the future.

One thing I know nadal is still playing and Sampras is retiring, and I dont believe on crap if Nadal play in 90s he will not win many GS it will be said also to Federer, but anyway its impossible coz Nadal and Fed will always lose because they are still very young at that time and it aint happening, maybe bring on retired Sampras to play tennis this time lets see if he can beat Nadal(he beat Federer on the exho before).

nastoff
09-15-2010, 07:42 AM
Didn't used to be a joke. Long list of great winners like Federer, Hewitt, Nalby, Guga, Sampras, Becker, Agassi, Edberg, Lendl, McEnroe, Borg, Connors, Nastase, Vilas.

IMO, if Nadal never wins the YEC, that will be a serious mar on his record. All the GOAT contenders (aside from Laver) have won it at least twice, Fed and Sampras winning it at least four times.

what about Federer never winning singles Olympic title, it's a fairly recent addition but it was within his reach and players are going crazy for it. Plus it's one every 4 years, not so easy getting one of those these days.
Federer set it as a goal and failed...he won the doubles title but common, it's not the same.
He will have one last chance in 2012.

Nadal will have plenty of opportunities to do well in the year-end tournament.

And I wouldn't play that one down, Dementieva will probably have that one to show as the pinnacle of her career.

The thing is, Nadal CAN further improve on hc's, we saw it this year and in doing so he might get a shot at that year-end championship as well. Federer can't improve anymore, all he can is emulate his old self - up to a degree - during his prime and that is no guarantee will be good enough.

Would you expect Federer to start firing at all cylinders, winning every single tight match he's involved with? Bearing in mind how he faired this season, it's highly unlikely.

allpro
09-15-2010, 07:59 AM
Good list but you forgot Vamos_Me_Rafa and allpro, and I'm sure there's more.

you're right.....there's also lafuglia = mugician.

sco
09-15-2010, 08:04 AM
This thread is as ridiculous as the other one arguing how Federer can be greater than Nadal.

When Nadal reaches 14 GS, then there can be a discussion. Nadal could have a career-ending accident tomorrow. Anything can happen, and things happen very quickly in tennis. Not 8 months ago, people were wondering about Nadal, his body and whether he could last.

allpro
09-15-2010, 08:08 AM
Didn't used to be a joke. Long list of great winners like Federer, Hewitt, Nalby, Guga, Sampras, Becker, Agassi, Edberg, Lendl, McEnroe, Borg, Connors, Nastase, Vilas.

IMO, if Nadal never wins the YEC, that will be a serious mar on his record. All the GOAT contenders (aside from Laver) have won it at least twice, Fed and Sampras winning it at least four times.

imo yec is nowhere near as prestigious or exciting as it once was in the 80's and 90's. slamless players seem hungrier for the yec these days.

marvin0211
09-15-2010, 08:08 AM
and surprise of all threadstarter is a fedtard

laurie-1
09-15-2010, 09:35 AM
Well usually in any current poll, the retired player usually comes out second best and considering Sampras hasn't played professionally for 8 years, he's doing quite well in this poll.

paseo
09-15-2010, 09:35 AM
and surprise of all threadstarter is a fedtard

I'm a Fedtard?

marvin0211
09-15-2010, 09:38 AM
I'm a Fedtard?

your not?really?

nastoff
09-15-2010, 09:45 AM
the spirit of the thread - I would imagine - is comparing a 24 yo Nadal to a 24 yo Federer and a 24 yo Sampras, and lets face it, Nadal is ahead of those guys in what he achieved at this age.

We can revisit that thread again in 2 years in time to see how Rafa's progress is getting on.

sheva07
09-15-2010, 09:47 AM
What a thread.:haha::haha::haha:

paseo
09-15-2010, 10:14 AM
your not?really?

Well, I don't know actually. It all depend on my mood, I guess.

careergrandslam
09-15-2010, 10:51 AM
one on one, nadal would beat the crap outta sampras on any surface.

but overall careers, sampras a bit ahead of nadal.

ogre
09-15-2010, 10:56 AM
Needs a third choice
[] too early to say

Tennisman82
09-15-2010, 11:34 AM
It’s obviously Sampras, this is a no-brainer. Even though Nadal has the Career Golden Slam, he still falls considerably short of Sampras’ 14 majors. Then you have to factor in Sampras’ dominant no.1 streaks (year-end no.1 & weeks at no.1) & his Wimbledon domination.

IMO Nadal is not in Sampras’ tier of achievements yet.

But as others have said…we should re-visit this issue towards or at the end of Nadal’s career. :)

Thanks,

Tennisman82.

Sophocles
09-15-2010, 12:29 PM
at 11 nadal will surpass him due to his all surface excellence. sampras was worthless on clay :o

Nadal has so far been "worthless" indoors.

marvin0211
09-15-2010, 12:29 PM
Well, I don't know actually. It all depend on my mood, I guess.

so indeed you are. Most of us Nadal fan know Sampras is better than him(am also a Sampras fan), do not sensationalize it the same as any tennis guru/writer/commentator. Nadal did not even proclaim himself greater player to anybody else so or if you ask him he will say he is lesser player than Sampras right if you ask that question, although his Uncle and coach say Laver, Bjorg and Federer are the great ones and he did not include Sampras on his list because his resume has a missing French Open. Federer has that issue before last year. Then someone had said Sampras competition is stronger than Rafa. I ask if there is no greater competition than supposed to be the GOAT in the name of Federer? They met 8 times in a GS and he wins 6 out of 8 its not a bad percentage over a GOAT,takeaway the FO and he win 50% of the contest still not bad right? Question is what is your motive putting this thread? although you dont like Nadal as a player and you are a Federer fan, you are worse than any Rafa fanatics at least they have the right about bragging coz they are fan but you want to put down Nadal and his accomplishment.

No logic in comparing him to Sampras try to compare him to Agassi they have almost the same accomplishment. We dont know the future and what is in store for Rafa in tennis. Sampras records in tennis was already written and published. It is like comparing a finished product to a raw material:D. Wait till Rafa finished his career in tennis then we can discuss this topic.

marvin0211
09-15-2010, 12:34 PM
:oNadal has so far been "worthless" indoors.

did he not won the Madrid masters 2005? what is it outdoors?

so you mean Nalbandian is greater than Nadal?

another hater

Sophocles
09-15-2010, 12:39 PM
:o

did he not won the Paris masters? what is it outdoors?

so you mean Nalbandian is greater than Nadal?

another hater

No he hasn't won Paris indoors. His only indoor title is Madrid in 2005. Yes, Nalbandian DOES have a better indoor record. So far, Nadal's record indoors is worse than Sampras's on clay, at least in terms of titles won. That is a fact, whether you are a "hater" or not.

marvin0211
09-15-2010, 12:45 PM
No he hasn't won Paris indoors. His only indoor title is Madrid in 2005. Yes, Nalbandian DOES have a better indoor record. So far, Nadal's record indoors is worse than Sampras's on clay, at least in terms of titles won. That is a fact, whether you are a "hater" or not.

Corrected already not Paris but it was Madrid

well that is a fact but to say Nadal record has worthless record indoors is not true but if you can compare it to Sampras, he has a great edge:rolleyes:

Sophocles
09-15-2010, 12:47 PM
Corrected already not Paris but it was Madrid

well that is a fact but to say Nadal record has worthless record indoors is not true but if you can compare it to Sampras, he has a great edge:rolleyes:

I was replying to allpro, who said Sampras was "worthless" on clay. That's why I put "worthless" in inverted commas. My point was, if Sampras was worthless on clay, Nadal has been worse than worthless indoors.

As it happens, I don't believe Sampras was worthless on clay, or that Nadal is worthless indoors, merely that they are each relatively poor.

star
09-15-2010, 12:53 PM
It's pointless to compare Sampras and Nadal. They are such different players.

Plus, Sampras has finished his career and Nadal has not.

doooma6816
09-15-2010, 12:53 PM
As much I love Rafa, Sampras NOW is greater, more slams, but after maybe 4 years, we can talk who is greater and I believe it would be Rafa, he can win a lot of slams if he is healthy.

doooma6816
09-15-2010, 12:54 PM
the spirit of the thread - I would imagine - is comparing a 24 yo Nadal to a 24 yo Federer and a 24 yo Sampras, and lets face it, Nadal is ahead of those guys in what he achieved at this age.

We can revisit that thread again in 2 years in time to see how Rafa's progress is getting on.

This. ;)

marvin0211
09-15-2010, 12:55 PM
I was replying to allpro, who said Sampras was "worthless" on clay. That's why I put "worthless" in inverted commas. My point was, if Sampras was worthless on clay, Nadal has been worse than worthless indoors.

As it happens, I don't believe Sampras was worthless on clay, or that Nadal is worthless indoors, merely that they are each relatively poor.

At least you admit it yourself, but since no GS is played indoors and less prestigious tournaments is played indoors clay has so much more weight and value so you cant compare it.

As I said on my post above lets wait till Nadal's retirement before we can compare and since this thread is started by a Federer fan we know really what is his goal.:rolleyes:

paseo
09-15-2010, 01:47 PM
so indeed you are. Most of us Nadal fan know Sampras is better than him(am also a Sampras fan), do not sensationalize it the same as any tennis guru/writer/commentator. Nadal did not even proclaim himself greater player to anybody else so or if you ask him he will say he is lesser player than Sampras right if you ask that question, although his Uncle and coach say Laver, Bjorg and Federer are the great ones and he did not include Sampras on his list because his resume has a missing French Open. Federer has that issue before last year. Then someone had said Sampras competition is stronger than Rafa. I ask if there is no greater competition than supposed to be the GOAT in the name of Federer? They met 8 times in a GS and he wins 6 out of 8 its not a bad percentage over a GOAT,takeaway the FO and he win 50% of the contest still not bad right? Question is what is your motive putting this thread? although you dont like Nadal as a player and you are a Federer fan, you are worse than any Rafa fanatics at least they have the right about bragging coz they are fan but you want to put down Nadal and his accomplishment.

No logic in comparing him to Sampras try to compare him to Agassi they have almost the same accomplishment. We dont know the future and what is in store for Rafa in tennis. Sampras records in tennis was already written and published. It is like comparing a finished product to a raw material:D. Wait till Rafa finished his career in tennis then we can discuss this topic.

You're wrong there. I think Nadal is great. And when I'm in the mood, I'm even a Nadal fan. But of course, you can call me anything you want. Doesn't really matter to me :D

On topic, I actually think that Nadal would dominate Sampras more than he dominates Fed. Sampras would have the same match-up disadvantage as Fed. And what makes it worse, he's not as good as Fed of the ground, so he won't be able to compete from the baseline, and would get passed left and right if he comes to the net. This is MY opinion, obviously. Sampras fans don't need to get offended.

Carry on :D

marvin0211
09-15-2010, 01:58 PM
And when I'm in the mood, I'm even a Nadal fan. :D

you are not a fan of Nadal, sometimes you admire him, maybe, but a fan no:)

sosolid4u09
09-15-2010, 02:01 PM
ATG Top 5.

1.Sampras
2.Federer
3.Borg
4.Nadal
5.Lendl

Sophocles
09-15-2010, 02:03 PM
On topic, I actually think that Nadal would dominate Sampras more than he dominates Fed. Sampras would have the same match-up disadvantage as Fed. And what makes it worse, he's not as good as Fed of the ground, so he won't be able to compete from the baseline, and would get passed left and right if he comes to the net. This is MY opinion, obviously. Sampras fans don't need to get offended.

This isn't relevant to who's greater, & it's also, in my opinion, false. On clay Nadal would obviously own Sampras, but on every other surface, hard as well as grass & carpet, Sampras was close to unplayable on a good day, AND he would be playing exactly the type of tennis you need to play to beat Nadal, i.e., ultra-aggressive, first-strike tennis, with huge serving, big flat groundstrokes (his groundstrokes are absurdly underrated), & deadly volleys. Nadal would give him a match and would pound his backhand in a lot of rallies, but Sampras's harder, flatter first strike with his forehand and more aggressive mind-set would allow him to avoid those rallies more often than Federer has done.

JolánGagó
09-15-2010, 02:10 PM
Nadal and not even close.

paseo
09-15-2010, 02:38 PM
you are not a fan of Nadal, sometimes you admire him, maybe, but a fan no:)

Okay.

This isn't relevant to who's greater, & it's also, in my opinion, false. On clay Nadal would obviously own Sampras, but on every other surface, hard as well as grass & carpet, Sampras was close to unplayable on a good day, AND he would be playing exactly the type of tennis you need to play to beat Nadal, i.e., ultra-aggressive, first-strike tennis, with huge serving, big flat groundstrokes (his groundstrokes are absurdly underrated), & deadly volleys. Nadal would give him a match and would pound his backhand in a lot of rallies, but Sampras's harder, flatter first strike with his forehand and more aggressive mind-set would allow him to avoid those rallies more often than Federer has done.

Well, agree to disagree, I guess.

marvin0211
09-15-2010, 02:41 PM
This isn't relevant to who's greater, & it's also, in my opinion, false. On clay Nadal would obviously own Sampras, but on every other surface, hard as well as grass & carpet, Sampras was close to unplayable on a good day, AND he would be playing exactly the type of tennis you need to play to beat Nadal, i.e., ultra-aggressive, first-strike tennis, with huge serving, big flat groundstrokes (his groundstrokes are absurdly underrated), & deadly volleys. Nadal would give him a match and would pound his backhand in a lot of rallies, but Sampras's harder, flatter first strike with his forehand and more aggressive mind-set would allow him to avoid those rallies more often than Federer has done.

We dont know that this is true(I can only say Nadal will beat Sampras anyday on clay when they are at peak, Wimbledon is an asterisk with small edge to Sampras), if they play today I think Sampras will be on the loosing end. We will never know for sure if they play at their peak of their career because they are of a different era so this is just speculation and no amount of reason or discussion needed to really come up with the right answer.

BigJohn
09-15-2010, 10:20 PM
Nadal and not even close.

You are wrong and right at the same time in this short post.

Highlighted is the part where you got it right.

oranges
09-15-2010, 11:51 PM
the spirit of the thread - I would imagine - is comparing a 24 yo Nadal to a 24 yo Federer and a 24 yo Sampras, and lets face it, Nadal is ahead of those guys in what he achieved at this age.

We can revisit that thread again in 2 years in time to see how Rafa's progress is getting on.

Ah, the famous 'at certain age' argument. If he wasn't retired, I'd put up Chang for GOAT :rocker2: Becker outdid Nadal at 21 with 4 slams already, but he ended with 'just' 2 more 8 years later. So much about keeping that pace for more then a 3-4 years at best.

Lopez
09-15-2010, 11:53 PM
JolanGago looking at the world with his Vamos Spain -tinted glasses, nothing new here :lol:.

Should Nadal get close to 14, i.e. 13 we can discuss this. Now, the difference is clear.

2003
11-26-2010, 10:04 AM
What do you guys think?

Sampras had an inferior clay game to Federer for sure, so one could argue he would have struggled to make the finals of RG anyway to meet Nadal, although he competed in an arguably tougher clay era than the current one.

But give Sampras 4 or 5 attempts over the space of 4 or 5 years to face Nadal at RG. Also say they meet on clay 2 or 3 times in the interrim at smaller events.

Does Sampras find a way to win? Does Sampras find a way to penetrate his game? Or is Nadal just too strong on clay, and Samprases dodgy ticker and blood disease mean he can never down the clay warrior in 5 sets on clay?

Even some of Nadals staunchest fans do admit that Sampras had a strong will, he tended not to be dominated or let players of his era get in his head or have terrible match ups.

So what do you guys think? Particularly on todays faster clay, had Sampras played in this era, he might have been able to bully Nadal around the court with a big serve and corner to corner hitting like Soderling did to him in 2009.

I still think he would get beat more times than not for sure, and probably relatively comfortably. I just wonder if Sampras wouldnt have willed one win over him, pulled an ace out of the hat.

Discuss.

Pirao666
11-26-2010, 10:18 AM
Lol, Sampras wouldn't even made it deep enough to get to Nadal most of the time, and when he did he would get destroyed.

Allez
11-26-2010, 10:18 AM
:haha: :haha: :haha:

Topspindoctor
11-26-2010, 10:21 AM
:spit: If by some miracle Sampras made it to Nadal, the outcome of the match would be similar to RG 2008 final. The S&V nonsense doesn't work on clay :rolleyes:

2003
11-26-2010, 10:37 AM
Lol, Sampras wouldn't even made it deep enough to get to Nadal most of the time, and when he did he would get destroyed.

This is a way weaker clay era though.

If Sampras could make it to the Semis once in his era, I think he could have anytime from 2004-2010.

In terms of RG, Federer made Nadal look good sometimes. Hes a match up issue and he struggles against him. Maybe Sampras would be a good match up in terms of Nadal.

You cant serve volley on clay, but the big servers showed in 2009 and 2010 you can hit a lot of aces on this faster clay.

Nadull_tard
11-26-2010, 10:37 AM
Sampras would be lucky to reach 3 games per set against Nadal in poor form. On fast clay.

Pirao666
11-26-2010, 10:41 AM
This is a way weaker clay era though.

If Sampras could make it to the Semis once in his era, I think he could have anytime from 2004-2010.

In terms of RG, Federer made Nadal look good sometimes. Hes a match up issue and he struggles against him. Maybe Sampras would be a good match up in terms of Nadal.

You cant serve volley on clay, but the big servers showed in 2009 and 2010 you can hit a lot of aces on this faster clay.

Nope, this is just another one of your idiotic threads, jus like the "will Nadal end up a 6 slam wonder" BS, give it up.

Jaz
11-26-2010, 10:47 AM
Wow, this is just a bad thread.

In terms of RG, Federer made Nadal look good sometimes. Hes a match up issue and he struggles against him. Maybe Sampras would be a good match up in terms of Nadal.


Federer is a great clay-courter, if Nadal was not there, Federer would have a shit load of French Opens.

Please think of a more creative thread, because Sampras' record was clear: he was shit on clay.

bjurra
11-26-2010, 10:53 AM
Sampras would struggle even more than Fed with Rafas looping forehand towards the backhand.

bjurra
11-26-2010, 10:54 AM
In terms of RG, Federer made Nadal look good sometimes. Hes a match up issue and he struggles against him. Maybe Sampras would be a good match up in terms of Nadal.

Are you trolling or are you still this ignorant about tennis after 950 posts?

Either way it is bad.

Allez
11-26-2010, 11:27 AM
I've just checked Sampras' results on the RG website. These are the so called GOATs he lost to in this superior clay court era...

1989 - Michael Chang
1990 - DNP
1991 - Thierry CHAMPION
1992 - Agassi
1993 - Sergi BRUGUERA
1994 -Jim COURIER
1995 - Gilbert SCHALLER
1996 - Yevgeny KAFELNIKOV
1997 - Magnus NORMAN
1998 - Ramon DELGADO
1999 - Andrei MEDVEDEV
2000 - Mark PHILIPPOUSSIS
2001 - Galo BLANCO
2002 - Andrea GAUDENZI

Who the f is thierry champion ? Gilbert Schaller ? Ramon Delgado ? Blanco ? Gaudenzi ? Even Norman, Medvedev and the Flipper for that matter.

Jim Courier is about the only worthy opponent for Nadal/Federer on that list and even he would have zero chance against either of them.

So STOP the bullshit :rolleyes:

DownInAHole
11-26-2010, 11:43 AM
Wow, this is just a bad thread.



Federer is a great clay-courter, if Nadal was not there, Federer would have a shit load of French Opens.

Please think of a more creative thread, because Sampras' record was clear: he was shit on clay.

This. Federer is arguably one of the best clay court players ever, it's just his bad luck that he played in an era with the best clay court player ever. It may seem ridiculous for me to call Federer one of the best on clay but just look at how many French Open and Masters finals he lost to Nadal, if not for Rafa Roger would almost certainly have multiple French Opens and many clay Masters titles.. Weak era or not Federer is clearly a much better clay court player than Sampras and if Roger was unable to beat Rafa at the French Open I don't see how Sampras could have done it. As others have pointed out even if you think this is a weak era Sampras still would have struggled to even get to the final.

It's kind of a shame that Federer was upset in the first round in 2003 and ran into Kuertan in 2004. He wasn't a lock by any stretch (he would have had to beat Moya, Coria and Ferrero in 2003 and Nalbandian, Gaudio and Coria in 2004) but it was a great chance to grab one or two wins before Nadal started dominating.

I think a much more interesting match would be Sampras and Nadal at Wimbledon. Obviously Pete would be the favourite but I don't think that he would have won seven times if he was playing in the same era as Nadal.

Allez
11-26-2010, 11:45 AM
I think a much more interesting match would be Sampras and Nadal at Wimbledon. Obviously Pete would be the favourite but I don't think that he would have won seven times if he was playing in the same era as Nadal.

Feel this :yeah:

Sophocles
11-26-2010, 11:52 AM
Sampras would struggle even more than Fed with Rafas looping forehand towards the backhand.

Exactly. Ffs Spanish & South American coaches ran workshops back in the day on "How to hit the ball up around Pete's shoulders". Pete had a better serve than Roger, better volleys, & flatter groundstrokes, & was mentally stronger, so I think on faster courts he'd have done at least as well as Fed against Nadal (who at peak was 5-2 up), but his defence was worse, his backhand even more targetable, & above all his movement on clay way shitter, so on clay, barring a miraculous performance with every low-percentage shot landing in, he would have lost even more often to Nadal than Roger has, & most times far more heavily.

Commander Data
11-26-2010, 12:02 PM
No way.

rocketassist
11-26-2010, 12:21 PM
He wouldn't beat Nadal, but this is definitely a weaker clay era than the 90s easily.

Fedal plus a bunch of hardcourt players playing hardcourt tennis on clay is not a strong clay era. The early 2000s, an era that gets slated for its 'transition' produced far better dirtballers than this one.

rocketassist
11-26-2010, 12:24 PM
I've just checked Sampras' results on the RG website. These are the so called GOATs he lost to in this superior clay court era...

1989 - Michael Chang
1990 - DNP
1991 - Thierry CHAMPION
1992 - Agassi
1993 - Sergi BRUGUERA
1994 -Jim COURIER
1995 - Gilbert SCHALLER
1996 - Yevgeny KAFELNIKOV
1997 - Magnus NORMAN
1998 - Ramon DELGADO
1999 - Andrei MEDVEDEV
2000 - Mark PHILIPPOUSSIS
2001 - Galo BLANCO
2002 - Andrea GAUDENZI

Who the f is thierry champion ? Gilbert Schaller ? Ramon Delgado ? Blanco ? Gaudenzi ? Even Norman, Medvedev and the Flipper for that matter.

Jim Courier is about the only worthy opponent for Nadal/Federer on that list and even he would have zero chance against either of them.

So STOP the bullshit :rolleyes:

Norman, Medvedev, Courier and Chang are all easily better than the current tour on clay bar Fedal.

So Kafelnikov, an RG champ, is an unworthy opponent? Fuck me. You :retard:

Sophocles
11-26-2010, 12:30 PM
Norman, Medvedev, Courier and Chang are all easily better than the current tour on clay bar Fedal.

So Kafelnikov, an RG champ, is an unworthy opponent? Fuck me. You :retard:

Agassi too. Who now is better on clay than him? Djoker?

Action Jackson
11-26-2010, 12:32 PM
2003 is campaigning for more ACC votes. Allez has never had a clue about tennis and never has.

rocketassist
11-26-2010, 12:33 PM
Agassi too. Who now is better on clay than him? Djoker?

That's quite a close one but I'd say Agassi, as one RG and two RG finals plus a Rome title is better than two RG semi finals and one Rome title.

Ozdog
11-26-2010, 12:35 PM
No shame in losing to Bruguera at the FO from what I can see of Bruguera's stats.