[Masters Slam]

Sampras' 98 : 1 Slam (0 finals) + 0 Masters (2 finals) ==> Year-end ranking: World No.1

Hewitt 2001 : 1 Salm (0 finals) + 0 Masters (0 finals) + 1 WTF ==> Year-end ranking: World No.1

Rodick 2003 : 1 Slam (0 finals) + 2 Masters (0 finals) ==> Year-end ranking: World No.1


Djokovic's 2008 > Sampras' 98, Hewitt 01 or Roddick 03, still ended up being world No.3!

No need to mention Nole's 2013 or Nadal's 2009 to name a few.

Sampras was 1998's World No.1 with just Wimbledon in his pocket, No masters, No WTF and not a single final at other slams!! Ary you fuckin' kidding me!! Only one big title!! Unbelievable!

I just can't! :banghead:

 

[grkhetan]

Djokovic in 2008 had 1 slam, 2 masters, and 1 WTF. Had decent performance in other slams too (2 semis). Still ended at #3! That's the cost you pay when you have people like Fed and Nadal around!!

To be frank Sampras's 98 was his weakest year at the top (and also his last). His dominance had just ended but he barely scraped through the #1 rank that year by playing some extra smaller tournaments towards the end of the year AFAIK. The new #1 was not set in stone and there were quite a few players who were close to being #1. In fact I think there were other players also who held the #1 ranking that year for short periods of time. So it was a transition year.

Novak definitely had to endure playing in the strongest era of tennis where all time greats like Fed and Nadal were playing. He has a lot less slams due to their presence. But the flip side is that he would never have become as strong a player he is now if he didn't have to increase his level until he could defeat these two greats. Nadal and Fed are key reasons why Novak at his prime today is probably the strongest tennis player of all time in terms of the quality of the game. Novak has taken tennis to a level higher than what Nadal had taken (he in turn had taken it a little higher than Roger).

I think no one in history played tennis better than what Novak is playing today and he would defeat any player of tennis history, both playing at their prime level. It's a bold claim but I think I stand by it. If he gets defeated a few times he will figure out a way to win and start winning. The same way he did against Roger and Rafa: no reason why he cannot do the same against any other player of history.


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App

 

[nadalfan2007]

Hewitt and Roddick on #1 is a misunderstanding. Any #3 since 2008>>>Hewitt+Roddick.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Murray in 2012 finished 3 or 4? He had a slam, another final and Olympics (+ some masters). Nadal had a slam, another final and some masters and finished 3 or 4 as well (Don't remember the order between those two).

 

[zzzyyy]

Djokovic in 2008 had 1 slam, 2 masters, and 1 WTF. Had decent performance in other slams too (2 semis). Still ended at #3! That's the cost you pay when you have people like Fed and Nadal around!!

To be frank Sampras's 98 was his weakest year at the top (and also his last). His dominance had just ended but he barely scraped through the #1 rank that year by playing some extra smaller tournaments towards the end of the year AFAIK. The new #1 was not set in stone and there were quite a few players who were close to being #1. In fact I think there were other players also who held the #1 ranking that year for short periods of time. So it was a transition year.

Novak definitely had to endure playing in the strongest era of tennis where all time greats like Fed and Nadal were playing. He has a lot less slams due to their presence. But the flip side is that he would never have become as strong a player he is now if he didn't have to increase his level until he could defeat these two greats. Nadal and Fed are key reasons why Novak at his prime today is probably the strongest tennis player of all time in terms of the quality of the game. Novak has taken tennis to a level higher than what Nadal had taken (he in turn had taken it a little higher than Roger).

I think no one in history played tennis better than what Novak is playing today and he would defeat any player of tennis history, both playing at their prime level. It's a bold claim but I think I stand by it. If he gets defeated a few times he will figure out a way to win and start winning. The same way he did against Roger and Rafa: no reason why he cannot do the same against any other player of history.


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App

:haha: :haha: :haha:

But French Open title still cannot be found?

He most certainly could not beat peak Nadal at RG. He couldn't even beat a Nadal that was a shadow of himself in RG 2014. And you can't tell me that Djokovic in 2015 is THAT much better than he was last year. Better yes, but not by a vast margin.

 

[nadalfan2007]

Safin, Hewitt, Ferrero, Muster, Moya, Rios, Kafelnikov, Rafter are former #1. But Murray is greater than each of them.

 

[Logos]

No need to fret. In the next several years there will probably be a vaccum where only Novak and Murray will be able to compete for the top with Zverev/Coric generation. In such conditions Novak will probably vulture one year end title at 31 or 32 with mediocre results (1 slam, 1 masters, 2 ATP 250s, 1 ATP 500 - something like that).

 

[Masters Slam]

Novak definitely had to endure playing in the strongest era of tennis where all time greats like Fed and Nadal were playing. He has a lot less slams due to their presence. But the flip side is that he would never have become as strong a player he is now if he didn't have to increase his level until he could defeat these two greats. Nadal and Fed are key reasons why Novak at his prime today is probably the strongest tennis player of all time in terms of the quality of the game. Novak has taken tennis to a level higher than what Nadal had taken (he in turn had taken it a little higher than Roger).

I think no one in history played tennis better than what Novak is playing today and he would defeat any player of tennis history, both playing at their prime level. It's a bold claim but I think I stand by it. If he gets defeated a few times he will figure out a way to win and start winning. The same way he did against Roger and Rafa: no reason why he cannot do the same against any other player of history.

Sensible MTFer here!

I couldn't agree more.

Hewitt and Roddick on #1 is a misunderstanding. Any #3 since 2008>>>Hewitt+Roddick.

Safin, Hewitt, Ferrero, Muster, Moya, Rios, Kafelnikov, Rafter are former #1. But Murray is greater than each of them.

100%

 

[Federer-Fan]

Djokovic's titles in Rome and WTF in 2008 weren't really impressive tbh.

 

[TigerTim]

Sampras fluked most of his wins due to favourable court speeds and a weak era

a combination of Nadal and Federer's circumstances combined to provide the clown with 14 slams, he had talent for 3/4 max.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Safin, Hewitt, Ferrero, Muster, Moya, Rios, Kafelnikov, Rafter are former #1. But Murray is greater than each of them.

Not Safin and Hewitt. You could have included Roddick instead of them.

 

[grkhetan]

:haha: :haha: :haha:

But French Open title still cannot be found?

He most certainly could not beat peak Nadal at RG. He couldn't even beat a Nadal that was a shadow of himself in RG 2014. And you can't tell me that Djokovic in 2015 is THAT much better than he was last year. Better yes, but not by a vast margin.

Novak >>> Rafa. Just looking at one tournament RG is meaningless. I agree that Peak Rafa may beat peak Novak at RG in a very tight match. But that same peak Rafa would get defeated by a peak Novak in all the other tournaments of the year, including the clay masters tournaments. :haha: So who is greater -- one who wins one tournament vs one who wins all the rest? :superlol:

 

[Subliminal]

Djokovic in 2008 had 1 slam, 2 masters, and 1 WTF. Had decent performance in other slams too (2 semis). Still ended at #3! That's the cost you pay when you have people like Fed and Nadal around!!

To be frank Sampras's 98 was his weakest year at the top (and also his last). His dominance had just ended but he barely scraped through the #1 rank that year by playing some extra smaller tournaments towards the end of the year AFAIK. The new #1 was not set in stone and there were quite a few players who were close to being #1. In fact I think there were other players also who held the #1 ranking that year for short periods of time. So it was a transition year.

Novak definitely had to endure playing in the strongest era of tennis where all time greats like Fed and Nadal were playing. He has a lot less slams due to their presence. But the flip side is that he would never have become as strong a player he is now if he didn't have to increase his level until he could defeat these two greats. Nadal and Fed are key reasons why Novak at his prime today is probably the strongest tennis player of all time in terms of the quality of the game. Novak has taken tennis to a level higher than what Nadal had taken (he in turn had taken it a little higher than Roger).

I think no one in history played tennis better than what Novak is playing today and he would defeat any player of tennis history, both playing at their prime level. It's a bold claim but I think I stand by it. If he gets defeated a few times he will figure out a way to win and start winning. The same way he did against Roger and Rafa: no reason why he cannot do the same against any other player of history.


Fedtards will riot over this but I agree with this. The level of tennis just goes higher and higher from generation to generation. Although, I think on grass and fast hard courts, Pete Sampras could rival anyone. He was a big time match player on fast surfaces. But yea, I think what Novak is doing to the game right now is just incredible.

 

[Subliminal]

Sampras fluked most of his wins due to favourable court speeds and a weak era

a combination of Nadal and Federer's circumstances combined to provide the clown with 14 slams, he had talent for 3/4 max.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with this. Sampras was a master on fast surfaces and his serve and volley style was one of the most effective in history. He had a huge first and second serve, bigger than Federer's but he could also play baseline tennis. He had a massive on the run forehand. Sampras was a beast.

 

[pepita1964]

:haha: :haha: :haha:

But French Open title still cannot be found?

He most certainly could not beat peak Nadal at RG. He couldn't even beat a Nadal that was a shadow of himself in RG 2014. And you can't tell me that Djokovic in 2015 is THAT much better than he was last year. Better yes, but not by a vast margin.

Yeah do not pay any attention to this BS! Just wait to next year to see what will happen. Novak' fans now are happy because their man is on top.

 

[wakeupbomb1234]

It's difficult and unsatisfactory to make any comparison between tennis in the 90s and today because the playing conditions have changed so much. Nadal and Djokovic wouldn't have had a sniff of winning Wimbledon in the 90s. Sampras would have pasted either of them at Wimbledon without even trying 100%. They would just have been swept aside in the early rounds, as he cruised through to another inevitable title. Probably Federer would have won less Wimbledon titles if he was around in the 90s (although he could well have won more French Opens).

Faster and considerably less uniform playing conditions ensured that the game was far more unpredictable. It's hard to imagine this now, but no-one quite knew what was going to happen at GS. Often there was no clear favourite. I could give you any number of examples, but the career of Agassi is a good example. He was the second best player of that era, and one of the all-time greats. Yet between 1993 and 1996, during which time he won Wimbledon, the US Open and the Australian Open, he went out in either the first or the second round of Wimbledon, the US Open and the French. And he didn't even play the Australian Open until 1995, despite the fact that he'd been on tour for nearly a decade by then! That's how much the game has changed.

In the 90s, Bruguera, Kafelnikov, Rafter, Gómez, Korda, Krajicek, Kuerten, Moyá, Muster and Stich all won Grand Slam titles. None of them won more than two (and most of them won only one). By contrast, we're already halfway through this decade, and only Cilic has won a slam who isn't a multi-slam winner, and where do you see the next new GS winner coming from?

There is no point for comparison between the 90s and today, frankly it's debatable whether the whole GOAT argument really has any credibility at all anyway.

 

[Chokeoria]

Sampras fluked most of his wins due to favourable court speeds and a weak era

a combination of Nadal and Federer's circumstances combined to provide the clown with 14 slams, he had talent for 3/4 max.

Because the way the courts got slowed down didn't help Murray at all to vulture those 2 slams.

 

[Subliminal]

It's difficult and unsatisfactory to make any comparison between tennis in the 90s and today because the playing conditions have changed so much. Nadal and Djokovic wouldn't have had a sniff of winning Wimbledon in the 90s. Sampras would have pasted either of them at Wimbledon without even trying 100%. They would just have been swept aside in the early rounds, as he cruised through to another inevitable title. Probably Federer would have won less Wimbledon titles if he was around in the 90s (although he could well have won more French Opens).

Faster and considerably less uniform playing conditions ensured that the game was far more unpredictable. It's hard to imagine this now, but no-one quite knew what was going to happen at GS. Often there was no clear favourite. I could give you any number of examples, but the career of Agassi is a good example. He was the second best player of that era, and one of the all-time greats. Yet between 1993 and 1996, during which time he won Wimbledon, the US Open and the Australian Open, he went out in either the first or the second round of Wimbledon, the US Open and the French. And he didn't even play the Australian Open until 1995, despite the fact that he'd been on tour for nearly a decade by then! That's how much the game has changed.

In the 90s, Bruguera, Kafelnikov, Rafter, Gómez, Korda, Krajicek, Kuerten, Moyá, Muster and Stich all won Grand Slam titles. None of them won more than two. By contrast, we're already halfway through this decade, and only Cilic has won a slam who isn't a multi-slam winner, and where do you see the next new GS winner coming from?

There is no point for comparison between the 90s and today, frankly it's debatable whether the whole GOAT argument really has any credibility at all anyway.

It was a well known fact that Agassi didn't take his tennis seriously in those years and he was becoming more known for his hair and what new woman was sitting in his box than his tennis. It wasn't until after his resurgence in 1999 that he took tennis much more seriously. Years later, we also found out he was on drugs so he is not a good example to use.

 

[wakeupbomb1234]

It was a well known fact that Agassi didn't take his tennis seriously in those years and he was becoming more known for his hair and what new woman was sitting in his box than his tennis. It wasn't until after his resurgence in 1999 that he took tennis much more seriously. Years later, we also found out he was on drugs so he is not a good example to use.

Do you not think the fact that he won three Grand Slam titles during that period suggests that he might have been trying a bit?

 

[Subliminal]

Do you not think the fact that he won three Grand Slam titles during that period suggests that he might have been trying a bit?

It's a demonstration of his talent but he had many distractions during that time. The media was even beginning to get on case because he seemed to care more about fame than playing tennis.