Is Nadal Better than Sampras?

Lets leave Fedal debate till their respective careers are over, so I gonna compare an existing Legend to a legendary veteran, yes Nadal vs Sampras who is better in terms of perfection, stats, style and achievements.

Nadal *

Slams - 13
Year End No.1's - 3 most probably counting this year if not at-least 2
Consecutive Year end No.1 - 1
Total Weeks at No.1 - 102 minimum
Masters - 25/27 ?  I really lost count considering he is winning one every week ,  he made a mockery of stats here
Maximum No. of times a single slam won - 8 FO  , I guess this should be wrong, 8 for GOD sake.
Maximum no. of times a trophy won in succession - 8 Monte Carlo  
h2h - pretty much dominates all rivals [youngsters , current age group and oldies ] and tour.
Olympics - 1 Gold
Davis Cup - Against lost track how many times Spain, actually I wouldn't have this but just in case
WTF - is the only black mark
Career Slam - Yes

Sampras
Slams - 14
Year End No.1 - 6 times ,
Consecutive Year end No.1 - 6 , seriously ?  
Total Weeks at No.1 - 286
Masters - 11
Maximum No. of times a single Slam won - 7 , Wimbledon
Maximum no. of times a trophy won in succession - 4 Wimbledon ? Somebody needs to help me in this.
h2h - pretty much dominates all rivals of same age but not youngsters and oldies.
WTF - 5
Davis Cup - I know USA won so many times but not sure how many he took part in, LF could help here.
Career Slam - No
FO an incomplete part
Olympic - 0.

Right now Rafa dominates in some stats while Sampras dominates in some stats, hence if Rafa wins 1 more slam which is more than likely then in my view he will move above Sampras in total accomplishment and GOAT order.

This is just a fun discussion on ranking of the legends, only constructive critcs please. 

Im not too bothered about the consecutive YE1 rankings - just the total years. On that basis Rafa is on 2 and looking highly likely to be on 3 by year end. Sampras I thjnk was on 4 at Rafa's current age, so not too much difference.

Davis Cup I believe is 4 to 2 in Rafa's favour.

If Rafa stopped now then I guess the question would be whether Sampras' WTF and number 1 stats are worth more than a career slam, an OG and double the masters. Its a tough one to call and I'd personally say the career slam edges it Rafa's way to me.

Born Slippy wrote:Im not too bothered about the consecutive YE1 rankings - just the total years. On that basis Rafa is on 2 and looking highly likely to be on 3 by year end. Sampras I thjnk was on 4 at Rafa's current age, so not too much difference.

Davis Cup I believe is 4 to 2 in Rafa's favour.

If Rafa stopped now then I guess the question would be whether Sampras' WTF and number 1 stats are worth more than a career slam, an OG and double the masters. Its a tough one to call and I'd personally say the career slam edges it Rafa's way to me.

Great points, I see the similar way, Nadal has made a name for himself with a complete CV, he is certainly No.2 in the list of all time greatness ahead of Sampras if he wins 1 more slam and will be considered GOAT when he makes 17 slams.

Laid out like that I'd say it's a close call but Rafa probably just edges it because of his career slam and absurd MS1000 record. The time at #1 and y/e #1 things just go to show how bloody good Federer and Djokovic have been to keep Rafa from dominating that as well...

It's close. Sampras didn't really 'get' the Davis Cup - he didn't consider it important. Nor did he get much chance at the Olympics - I think he only played in 1, maybe 2 and it wasn't considered very important at the time.
You can't compare the level of play of the 2 players, given how much tennis has moved on. Clearly Rafa plays at a higher level, but that's not really relevant to the argument.
It's not hard to put Sampras ahead on grass and HC and Rafa on clay. Rafa has the career slam, but Pete has way more weeks at No. 1 Rafa has more Masters but Pete has more tournament wins overall, including more slams.
It's probably wafer thin, but I'd still put Pete a sheet of paper ahead.

Yes

At present, it's very close.

I think nothing better than a SF at RG is a big mark against Pete in this argument. But the weeks at number 1 is a very big argument for.

I think we can safely say that Pete is a lot better on grass, Rafa a lot better on clay. The hard court comparison is tricky because they played under different conditions.

If we change the question to "who is most successful", I always say that slams and then weeks at #1 are the main currency, so I'd give it to Pete by a whisker.

By the time Rafa's career is over though, I think he'll be the most successful.

Tough one for me as I'm a big known fan of both guys.

Pete on his day was absolutely devastating, completely unplayable at times. I still remember and consider his 99 Wimb final vs Agassi as the highest level of tennis I've ever seen played to this day, it was a ridiculous performance and he knew it too. He was the most aggressive player I've ever seen and likely fast court GOAT...that serve alone is hall of fame. His stamina issues through thalassemia always meant he wouldn't succeed on clay though despite actually having the game to do so. He didn't take AO seriously either, not even entering for a few years so 14 could have been higher for sure.

But then Nadal is almost certainly slow court GOAT and making his statement across other surfaces now too...albeit they aren't as fast as before. However, he's setting some ridiculous records now...only guy to win 3 slams in a row in CY in Open Era, only guy to win the Clay season and HC season slams....MC/Rome/Madrid/RG & Canada/Cincy/USO. He's won the RG-Wimb double twice and that winning H2H over all 30 top players is insane....had Davydenko progressed to R3 at USO he would have levelled that H2H also.

I don't count weeks at #1 that seriously...after all Hingis has 209 weeks (4th highest) but 'only' 5 slams. Borg is GOAT candidate with only 109 weeks. YE#1 is more important though and Pete's record there is amazing...and unlucky not to be 7 due to back injury at USO99. Rafa is about to make it 3 which is no mean feat, and has been top 2 for seemingly ever. He's the only guy to win slams for 9 consequence years and counting in Open Era so he's Mr Longevity too. The only blemish so far is his WTF record but he was always spent by then...maybe he will start to address that one and make it an objective, we'll see but Pete had 5 wins there....that's said it's only an indoor event of 8 players.

So, hard to call..I'd give it by a shave to Nadal due to the sheer scope of what he's achieved and he's really starting to breathe down Federer's neck too. However, I just can't forget that 99 Wimbledon performance...but then I can't forget Nadal at Miami 2004, Rome 2005 & 2006, Wimb 08 or USO10 either!

I'd give it to Sampras - I'd still give Sampras even when Nadal gets his 14th. The weeks at number 1 decides it. Though I'd argue Nadal had a greater battle for number 1 considering the freakish consistency of a prime Fed and subsequently Djokovic denied him several weeks at number one. Even when he wasn't winning, Sampras never really had a rival who was sweeping consecutive slams and imposing themselves across all tournaments and surfaces - not even Agassi.

Don't attach much relevance to the whole Olympics thing. Or even the YEC which I don't rate any higher than a Masters despite the ranking points and format.

The big difficulty with who is "better" is that both their games are very much of their eras.

Sampras converted from a DHBH to SHBH I believe. Can you you imagine anyone making that switch on modern surfaces? And he would have way more passing shots hit by him on his ventures to the net today.

Conversely, can you imagine Rafa on a quick, low bouncing 90s Wimbledon? So much of his game would be blunted.

I would say both are on an equal footing. You take Slam count and Rafa's Career Slam makes up for it. You take the YE rankings Pete had and you can throw in Rafa's ridiculous H2H against his rivals.

I don't think at this stage in time you could get a fag paper between them!

Of course he is! Isn't the big question whether he is better than Federer?

Nadal because he's done it against Federer while Federer was winning slams and Federer is considered by most, to be a better player than Sampras.

hawkeye wrote:Of course he is! Isn't the big question whether he is better than Federer?

No, It is debatable over sampras, it isn't with feds, yet.

Stats wise he can't compare with Fed yet. To try to argue he is greater you need to factor in injuries and the h2h. Personally, I consider that Nadal is a better player. However, the history books will show Fed's achievements are greater.

That said, Rafa is basically on course to get around the same number of slams as Fed. Were that to happen it would be very hard to then ignore the head to head as a tiebreaker.

hawkeye wrote:Of course he is! Isn't the big question whether he is better than Federer?

We will keep that argument when either Fed's or Rafa's career is over, coz unless there is a set barometer its difficult to gauge things, its like Who is better all time between Murray and Del Potro in 2009. 

Still some believe Pete more successful than Rafa, I would say the same until Rafa wins 1 more slam, if he does then he is completely ahead of Pete in terms of accomplishment.  

Born Slippy wrote:I consider that Nadal is a better player. However, the history books will show Fed's achievements are greater.

I won't agree there yet either, Fed on his hey days was a bigger monster than Rafa on hie hey days, Fed on 30's again has set a new level and can Rafa better it?

Where Rafa completely scored over Fed is young age, Rafa had more slams at his young age when at the respective age Fed didn't even score one slam, however Fed made it up in his hey days but Rafa scored it in a more consistent manner.

Lets for the moment not deviate from the actual topic and discuss just the strengths and weakness of the two players accomplishments.

HE you naughty completely changed the topic discussion with your one liner.  

Are Nadal's achievements in the MS tournaments diluted slightly by the switch away from finals being Bo5, do we think? Not normally an issue worth dwelling on, but when the players are this close...

I say Sampras currently, but Nadal will surely overtake him soon. As for catching Federer, he still has work to do, but certainly has time and could do it. Regarding for who was better on the day, against each other it was Nadal (AO'09 - best example), but Federer was far more devastating against other players at his peak. He made skilled professionals look like amateurs on a routine basis, utterly unplayable. Just IMO, of course.

lydian wrote:Tough one for me as I'm a big known fan of both guys.

I don't count weeks at #1 that seriously...after all Hingis has 209 weeks (4th highest) but 'only' 5 slams. Borg is GOAT candidate with only 109 weeks. YE#1 is more important though and Pete's record there is amazing...and unlucky not to be 7 due to back injury at USO99. Rafa is about to make it 3 which is no mean feat, and has been top 2 for seemingly ever. He's the only guy to win slams for 9 consequence years and counting in Open Era so he's Mr Longevity too. The only blemish so far is his WTF record but he was always spent by then...maybe he will start to address that one and make it an objective, we'll see but Pete had 5 wins there....that's said it's only an indoor event of 8 players.

I'd say weeks at #1 is way more meaningful than YE#1, which afterall is an arbitrary point in the calendar.
Either way, Sampras (286, 2nd all time, 6 YE#1) is way ahead of Nadal (102, 7th all time, 2 YE#1).

The WTF may only be 8 players, but they are the top 8 in the world. You need to win 5 matches against them, in the space of a week. In many ways winning the WTF can be harder than winning a slam (if you only have to beat 1 top 8 player - e.g., Nadal USO2013). Another way to put this, its harder to get a cupcake draw at the WTF than a slam.
Again who leads in WTF wins? Sampras (5) vs Nadal (0).

Is it a coincidence that the top two Mens slam winners (Federer 17, and Sampras 14) are also the top two in weeks at #1 (302 and 286 respectively), as well as WTF wins (Federer 6, Sampras 5)?

zaron wrote:

lydian wrote:Tough one for me as I'm a big known fan of both guys.

I don't count weeks at #1 that seriously...after all Hingis has 209 weeks (4th highest) but 'only' 5 slams. Borg is GOAT candidate with only 109 weeks. YE#1 is more important though and Pete's record there is amazing...and unlucky not to be 7 due to back injury at USO99. Rafa is about to make it 3 which is no mean feat, and has been top 2 for seemingly ever. He's the only guy to win slams for 9 consequence years and counting in Open Era so he's Mr Longevity too. The only blemish so far is his WTF record but he was always spent by then...maybe he will start to address that one and make it an objective, we'll see but Pete had 5 wins there....that's said it's only an indoor event of 8 players.

I'd say weeks at #1 is way more meaningful than YE#1, which afterall is an arbitrary point in the calendar.
Either way, Sampras (286, 2nd all time, 6 YE#1) is way ahead of Nadal (102, 7th all time, 2 YE#1).

The WTF may only be 8 players, but they are the top 8 in the world. You need to win 5 matches against them, in the space of a week. In many ways winning the WTF can be harder than winning a slam (if you only have to beat 1 top 8 player - e.g., Nadal USO2013). Another way to put this, its harder to get a cupcake draw at the WTF than a slam.
Again who leads in WTF wins? Sampras (5) vs Nadal (0).

Is it a coincidence that the top two Mens slam winners (Federer 17, and Sampras 14) are also the top two in weeks at #1 (302 and 286 respectively), as well as WTF wins (Federer 6, Sampras 5)?

I agree weeks at number one puts Sampras easily ahead - at least until Nadal can topple his slam tally. As for the WTF, I rate it equal or marginally ahead of Masters events. It is biased towards certain courts and favours certain players over others so I wouldn't say it's a fair indication of your dominance over your top peers. The low bouncing, sticky indoor surfaces used in it are not particularly favoured by Nadal - not to mention his form always seems to strangely collapse around that period of the season. I suspect he'll give it a really good go this year.

Good article and discussion. It's hard to call isn't it.

Rafa has the major points of the career slam, playing in a tougher era in my personal opinion, and head to head record against other greats, or indeed anyone at all.

Total slams not decided yet, but Rafa loooking favourite at moment as he only needs 2 more.

Personally I like year end no 1s rather than weeks because it's easier to compare back with past champions. Weeks is also arbitrary in a sense. Whoever is #1 in the off season gets about 6 weeks for nothing, you could win or lose a few weeks at #1 because someone moved a tournament forward or back. Anyway, Rafa is miles behind in both and doesn't look likely to catch up.

I think I would go Sampras if Rafa retired tomorrow, but if Rafa can win 2 slams more I'd go Rafa. As soon as Federer had career slam + more slams than Sampras the Federer/Sampras debate was done, I don't see why it should be any different for Rafa.

Lydian, Rafa's best performance that I saw was AO 2009 final, especially coming after that semi. That was the second best performance I ever saw, and I agree with you about the first being Sampras in 1999 at Wimbledon.

In Pete's day Wimbledon was very fast compared to the FO and winning both was a more challenging achievement than it is now, it's hard to say for sure if Rafa would have won both US Open and Wimbledon with faster speeds.

No such thing as GOAT. I rate both Sampras and Rafa as exceptional players, but beyond that the context of their success is too dissimilar to be compared

Has any other player in the history of the sport won 2 slams or more on each surface (grass, hard, clay). If so, I would be curious to know who they might be. I cannot think of any at least in the open era.

I think the obscure answer to my own question (or at least one of them) is Mats Wilander taking into account that although he never won Wimbledon he won 2 AOs on grass.

I think certainly, considering the players he's beat to win his titles, and also the time he's spent out with injury.

If he wins the Aussie again, he'll have 2 of each slam, which i believe is unique

Henman Bill wrote:Has any other player in the history of the sport won 2 slams or more on each surface (grass, hard, clay). If so, I would be curious to know who they might be. I cannot think of any at least in the open era.

The idea here is a player who wins on all surfaces is better than one who only wins on one or two.

In theory this is good, but in practice the surface is only part of the equation. What you really want to know is the conditions, e.g., fast/slow, high/low bounce, ... This will depend not just on the surface, but also on the type of balls used. Also the effective speed or the court (how easy is it to defend vs hit winners) depends on the type of racket and strings being used.

We all know that the "conditions" today are alot closer together than they were 20 years ago, so the statistic of slam wins on grass/hard/clay is not so meaningful as it once was.

The reason Borg is part of the GOAT discussion (despite relatively worse statistics on #1 etc) is precisely because he won on very different surfaces, back-to-back.

Henman Bill wrote:Good article and discussion. It's hard to call isn't it.

Rafa has the major points of the career slam, playing in a tougher era in my personal opinion, and head to head record against other greats, or indeed anyone at all.

Total slams not decided yet, but Rafa loooking favourite at moment as he only needs 2 more.

Personally I like year end no 1s rather than weeks because it's easier to compare back with past champions. Weeks is also arbitrary in a sense. Whoever is #1 in the off season gets about 6 weeks for nothing, you could win or lose a few weeks at #1 because someone moved a tournament forward or back. Anyway, Rafa is miles behind in both and doesn't look likely to catch up.

You kind of made my point. Weeks isn't exact, in the sense that 302 isn't significantly different than 286, but 286 is alot different than 102. (In case you wondering: 302=Federer, 286=Sampras, 102=Nadal)

I think I would go Sampras if Rafa retired tomorrow, but if Rafa can win 2 slams more I'd go Rafa. As soon as Federer had career slam + more slams than Sampras the Federer/Sampras debate was done, I don't see why it should be any different for Rafa.

Hmm, the difference is that Federer and Sampras had such similar other stats (e.g., weeks @#1, WTFs, as well as break down of slams won), and Federer is equal or ahead in every one, so its a no brainer.

Nadal vs Sampras is much harder because Sampras has stats that Nadal won't touch even with 2 more slams.
For it to get interesting, I would say Nadal needs to close the gap in weeks@#1, win some more fast court slams, as well as a few WTFs.

Lydian, Rafa's best performance that I saw was AO 2009 final, especially coming after that semi. That was the second best performance I ever saw, and I agree with you about the first being Sampras in 1999 at Wimbledon.

In Pete's day Wimbledon was very fast compared to the FO and winning both was a more challenging achievement than it is now, it's hard to say for sure if Rafa would have won both US Open and Wimbledon with faster speeds.

zaron wrote:
Nadal vs Sampras is much harder because Sampras has stats that Nadal won't touch even with 2 more slams.
For it to get interesting, I would say Nadal needs to close the gap in weeks@#1, win some more fast court slams, as well as a few WTFs.

He needs to win more slams and bridge the gap in weeks at number 1. The others aren't relevant. It doesn't matter the distribution of the slams across whatever kind of surface. And Sampras' superior WTF wins is easily matched by Nadal's vastly superior Masters count.

mthierry wrote:

zaron wrote:
Nadal vs Sampras is much harder because Sampras has stats that Nadal won't touch even with 2 more slams.
For it to get interesting, I would say Nadal needs to close the gap in weeks@#1, win some more fast court slams, as well as a few WTFs.

He needs to win more slams and bridge the gap in weeks at number 1. The others aren't relevant. It doesn't matter the distribution of the slams across whatever kind of surface. And Sampras' superior WTF wins is easily matched by Nadal's vastly superior Masters count.

I think the distribution of slams would matter. Lets say Nadal wins two more FO. He would have 15 slams, and an incredible 10 FO wins, but the other slams: 5 wins (Fedx2,Djokox2,Berdx1), plus 4 loses in the finals (Fedx2, Djokox2). Doesn't look so good does it? My point is he would need to do more outside of the clay.

Winning a WTF is much harder than winning a typical Masters, so you can't equate the two records. Plus you have events like Monte Carlo, which are really a 500 level event skewing the numbers. It hurts Nadal's case to of never won the WTF.

Believe it or not, Sampras was in fact the hero of the 1995 Davis Cup Final between the US & the USSR - which played in Moscow on Indoor...Clay!! Sampras won in Doubles with Todd Martin. Cramped in a Singles Rubber vs. Cherkasov and then won the decider vs. Volkov.. he basically carried that entire Tie on his back.

He won 64 ATP Titles in his career that spanned 12 years. He won 762 of 984 ATP Matches. In Majors he was even more powerful, winning 203 of 241 matches in Majors. Ironic as it is, he still won more than half the time on clay in his career - winning 90 of 144 matches and three titles! Sampras always said he loved "dominance". In any form. That's why he gave so much credit to Lendl which no one really did, because for 3 years Lendl was basically untouchable. That's why Sampras loves Federer - it's Federer's dominance for years that makes an impression on a guy like Sampras. And..it was Sampras who spoke up publicly on Nadal's behalf when assessing the 81 match win streak Nadal put together. He'd said that Nadal's dominance of clay is something that often gets under respected because of the surface. And Laver chimed in that Nadal's dominance of clay now was superior to Borg's back then because there are far more players today who play their best on clay than Borg ever had to face.

Whether Nadal is "better" than Sampras? Hmm. Depends on the term "better". Nadal is still writing his career. He's won 60 titles so far. But the clay stats are what boggle the mind. He's won, incredibly, three different tournaments at least 8 times each!! Besides Roland Garros, he's won 8 titles in Monte Carlo, and Barcelona. If you drop that criteria to seven titles, you can add Rome to that mix. Is there any other player who has won four different events on the ATP Tour at least 7 times each?? It's insane. There is no one else who comes close to that kind of dominance of any single surface than the way Nadal dominates clay. That he's due to enter his 10th Roland Garros next spring and has still only lost 1 match there is just stupefying.

Sampras dominated his day with the game made to dominate at that time. Serve Volley was still an effective style. He used then an even smaller racquet head that Federer is contemplating switching now. Which undoubtedly hurt him even more on clay with all the high bounces. When Luxilon (which Sampras himself called "Cheatalon") made it's way into prominence by the late 90's, it ushered in the antiquity of Serve Volley as an effective style. Those legendary Sampras Serves that were once unreturnable were now not only coming back, but often coming back as fast or faster than they were delivered. Robbing Sampras of the time to get inside the Service Line to make his volley, he was now getting passed left & right regularly. His ranking started to sink. And it took him too long to figure out not only what was wrong but how to fix it. By the time he quit he knew he couldn't change his style by playing back and rallying. But if Sampras was starting out today? One thing we forget is just how good the Sampras Forehand really was. When he hit it on the run it was amazing to watch. So with his Serve as it was and his Forehand as good as it was, and as athletic as he was, he might have done very very well even today. Most of the truly legendary players would have adjusted. Legends are more than the sum of their strokes. Sampras did what he was supposed to do when he played: he was basically untouchable in most of his matches. It's exactly the way Nadal is on clay today.

zaron wrote:

mthierry wrote:

zaron wrote:
Nadal vs Sampras is much harder because Sampras has stats that Nadal won't touch even with 2 more slams.
For it to get interesting, I would say Nadal needs to close the gap in weeks@#1, win some more fast court slams, as well as a few WTFs.

He needs to win more slams and bridge the gap in weeks at number 1. The others aren't relevant. It doesn't matter the distribution of the slams across whatever kind of surface. And Sampras' superior WTF wins is easily matched by Nadal's vastly superior Masters count.

I think the distribution of slams would matter. Lets say Nadal wins two more FO. He would have 15 slams, and an incredible 10 FO wins, but the other slams: 5 wins (Fedx2,Djokox2,Berdx1), plus 4 loses in the finals (Fedx2, Djokox2). Doesn't look so good does it? My point is he would need to do more outside of the clay.

Winning a WTF is much harder than winning a typical Masters, so you can't equate the two records. Plus you have events like Monte Carlo, which are really a 500 level event skewing the numbers. It hurts Nadal's case to of never won the WTF.

Sampras has no clay slam and never even made the final. Nadal would most likely finish with at least 2 for all the slams plus the multiple French Opens. So no.......it isn't relevant where he wins them from here on out. Dominating one surface consistently doesn't deserve less respect than winning the occassional slam on each. At least, in my opinion. The WTF format may be more difficult (you could even apply your argument to say the format is more difficult than the slams) but talking about actual prestige, then depending on what a player has accomplished before, someone like Davydenko won't find his WTF title any more satisfying than winning Miami or Indian Wells. Masters are an even fairer measure of a player than the WTF for the simple fact they're played across different conditions and aren't skewed to conditions a particular player favours. Murray would probably not have switched his Olympic gold last season to win at the WTF.

theres so much talk about match up you would love to see, federer vs sampras comes up a lot. I was an Agassi fan and I am a Federer fan, but the match I would love to see is Sampras vs Nadal. Petes record in slam finals is awesome would have been even better had it not been two losses to Hewitt and Safin late in his career. Mentally he was a giant, plus the clash of game styles would haves been quality. Nadal is imo has the best passing shot ever, but could Pete handle it? Obviously on clay Rafa would win but on hard and grass best of 5 that would be fascinating!

zaron wrote:

lydian wrote:Tough one for me as I'm a big known fan of both guys.

I don't count weeks at #1 that seriously...after all Hingis has 209 weeks (4th highest) but 'only' 5 slams. Borg is GOAT candidate with only 109 weeks.

I'd say weeks at #1 is way more meaningful than YE#1, which afterall is an arbitrary point in the calendar.
Either way, Sampras (286, 2nd all time, 6 YE#1) is way ahead of Nadal (102, 7th all time, 2 YE#1).

I agree  

ChequeredJersey wrote:If he wins the Aussie again, he'll have 2 of each slam, which i believe is unique

That would be just another breath taking feat  

@HenmanBill on good article

 

CAS wrote:theres so much talk about match up you would love to see, federer vs sampras comes up a lot. I was an Agassi fan and I am a Federer fan, but the match I would love to see is Sampras vs Nadal. Petes record in slam finals is awesome would have been even better had it not been two losses to Hewitt and Safin late in his career. Mentally he was a giant, plus the clash of game styles would haves been quality. Nadal is imo has the best passing shot ever, but could Pete handle it? Obviously on clay Rafa would win but on hard and grass best of 5 that would be fascinating!

I would put it this way on AO and FO Rafa would have dominated and Wimby and USO Pete would have dominated , and the best part is both are smart and hence would not meet on each other's surface on their prime, for instance Pete would tank his FO and AO by quarters or semi's if know Rafa is going strong and same would be the case for Rafa and he would have tanked in 1st or 2nd round if he knew Pete is firing on Wimbledon and USO.
Something Fed wasn't smart enough to do at his prime, he kept on making finals in the clay knowing Rafa waits, if Fed would have avoided 10 of those 13 clashes in clay he would have been more confident and Rafa less confident against each other.

So I wouldn't be even surprised if the career h2h would have just spanned 4 matches with each splitting 2-2  .

zaron wrote:

mthierry wrote:

zaron wrote:
Nadal vs Sampras is much harder because Sampras has stats that Nadal won't touch even with 2 more slams.
For it to get interesting, I would say Nadal needs to close the gap in weeks@#1, win some more fast court slams, as well as a few WTFs.

He needs to win more slams and bridge the gap in weeks at number 1. The others aren't relevant. It doesn't matter the distribution of the slams across whatever kind of surface. And Sampras' superior WTF wins is easily matched by Nadal's vastly superior Masters count.

I think the distribution of slams would matter. Lets say Nadal wins two more FO. He would have 15 slams, and an incredible 10 FO wins, but the other slams: 5 wins (Fedx2,Djokox2,Berdx1), plus 4 loses in the finals (Fedx2, Djokox2). Doesn't look so good does it? My point is he would need to do more outside of the clay.

Winning a WTF is much harder than winning a typical Masters, so you can't equate the two records. Plus you have events like Monte Carlo, which are really a 500 level event skewing the numbers. It hurts Nadal's case to of never won the WTF.

Under what criteria does it not look good? Anyway, ALL of Sampras' slams were on fast court...

ChequeredJersey wrote:

zaron wrote:

mthierry wrote:

zaron wrote:
Nadal vs Sampras is much harder because Sampras has stats that Nadal won't touch even with 2 more slams.
For it to get interesting, I would say Nadal needs to close the gap in weeks@#1, win some more fast court slams, as well as a few WTFs.

He needs to win more slams and bridge the gap in weeks at number 1. The others aren't relevant. It doesn't matter the distribution of the slams across whatever kind of surface. And Sampras' superior WTF wins is easily matched by Nadal's vastly superior Masters count.

I think the distribution of slams would matter. Lets say Nadal wins two more FO. He would have 15 slams, and an incredible 10 FO wins, but the other slams: 5 wins (Fedx2,Djokox2,Berdx1), plus 4 loses in the finals (Fedx2, Djokox2). Doesn't look so good does it? My point is he would need to do more outside of the clay.

Winning a WTF is much harder than winning a typical Masters, so you can't equate the two records. Plus you have events like Monte Carlo, which are really a 500 level event skewing the numbers. It hurts Nadal's case to of never won the WTF.

Under what criteria does it not look good? Anyway, ALL of Sampras' slams were on fast court...

All Nadal's Slams are on slow courts.

I think the only chink in the Nadal armour is the weeks at number 1. If he can make inroads on that, then Federer should start looking over his shoulder

But if Rafa is seen to be nowhere near Sampras as too many of his slams are on clay (and "all on slow court") the logic doesn't hold up as Sampras got literally all of his on fast court, and there are more available majors there. It was an utterly ridiculous point

I think he/she more in terms was thinking Pete had 7 Wimbledons and 5 US Opens and that maybe Rafa needs more Slams in the other events to not make his achievements look so one surfaced. It's not a point I share. I think Rafa's achievements are quite ridiculous in consistency.

legendkillarV2 wrote:All Nadal's Slams are on slow courts.

I think the only chink in the Nadal armour is the weeks at number 1. If he can make inroads on that, then Federer should start looking over his shoulder

All Nadal's slams are on slow court? Really? Did you think Wimbledon was a slow court when Federer couldn't touch Roddick's serve for a number of games that ran into the equivalent of 6 sets in the 2009 Wimbledon final? Or did you think the US Open courts were slow when Fed won it every year? I'm not denying there've been some change in those surfaces in the early part of the last decade but many of you sure take the discussion to the level of sensationalist hyperbole.

ChequeredJersey wrote:If he wins the Aussie again, he'll have 2 of each slam, which i believe is unique

It's been done by both Rod Laver and Roy Emerson but only by winning slams in the 1960s when they were second tier amateur events.

Let's not also forget that Roger not-quite-retired-yet Federer still has an outside chance of this as well. He just needs 1 FO.

I'd move Nadal ahead of Pete now, much as I loved Sampras and his style as a kid. Appreciate that Rafa 'only' (!) having 102 weeks at number one compared to Pete's 286 is a striking stat, but I'd wager that Pete would be having a hard time cracking three figures if his peak years coincided with those of Djokovic and a still 85% or more (2008-2012) Federer.

Some good points both ways regarding the year-end championships, and I'll admit I can see both sides of the coin.

But Nadal's career Slam is massive when comparing him directly to Pete. Slowed courts or no, he's still shown the ability to adapt and adjust his game in a way that Sampras couldn't quite manage. What Nadal has achieved on his weakest surface compared to what Sampras did on his makes for pretty hard reading if you're a Sampras fanatic.

And what, more than twice as many TMS / 1000s as Pistol Pete managed? Sure, Sampras' weeks at number one and year-end championships might have given him an early lead, but surely Nadal's record at that level eats in to it? Total Slam count is a bit of a red herring in some ways, as Nadal is virtually guaranteed to surpass Sampras' total in any case. I'd rather have 13 across all four Slams than 14 across three of them, but that's just me.

Put it this way - Nadal was able to remove a nigh-on peak Federer from the top of the rankings. I don't think Sampras would have been able to. Sampras, in his peak years, conceded the top spot while uninjured to the likes of Muster and Moya; again, I don't think this would have happened with Nadal.

Pete got knocked out of the discussion on who is THE greatest a few years back, for me (although he's still one of the greatest), whereas Nadal is still very much in the hunt. Fine margins but I'd have to give it to Rafa.

mthierry wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:All Nadal's Slams are on slow courts.

I think the only chink in the Nadal armour is the weeks at number 1. If he can make inroads on that, then Federer should start looking over his shoulder

All Nadal's slams are on slow court? Really? Did you think Wimbledon was a slow court when Federer couldn't touch Roddick's serve for a number of games that ran into the equivalent of 6 sets in the 2009 Wimbledon final? Or did you think the US Open courts were slow when Fed won it every year? I'm not denying there've been some change in those surfaces in the early part of the last decade but many of you sure take the discussion to the level of sensationalist hyperbole.

Are you seriously telling me that Wimbledon hasn't slown down and actually plays like a proper grass court. The reason the serves flew past Federer might have something to do with the 130mph+ bombs that Roddick could average.

If Arthur Ashe played anything like Louis Armstrong then maybe I would say it was a fast court.

To suggest otherwise is sheer madness.

Henman Bill wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:If he wins the Aussie again, he'll have 2 of each slam, which i believe is unique

It's been done by both Rod Laver and Roy Emerson but only by winning slams in the 1960s when they were second tier amateur events.

Let's not also forget that Roger not-quite-retired-yet Federer still has an outside chance of this as well. He just needs 1 FO.

Really can't see Fed getting a FO now, not unless Rafa and Novak get injured

^ Fed can beat Novak... but probably not Rafa.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

mthierry wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:All Nadal's Slams are on slow courts.

I think the only chink in the Nadal armour is the weeks at number 1. If he can make inroads on that, then Federer should start looking over his shoulder

All Nadal's slams are on slow court? Really? Did you think Wimbledon was a slow court when Federer couldn't touch Roddick's serve for a number of games that ran into the equivalent of 6 sets in the 2009 Wimbledon final? Or did you think the US Open courts were slow when Fed won it every year? I'm not denying there've been some change in those surfaces in the early part of the last decade but many of you sure take the discussion to the level of sensationalist hyperbole.

Are you seriously telling me that Wimbledon hasn't slown down and actually plays like a proper grass court. The reason the serves flew past Federer might have something to do with the 130mph+ bombs that Roddick could average.

If Arthur Ashe played anything like Louis Armstrong then maybe I would say it was a fast court.

To suggest otherwise is sheer madness.

Until Nadal actually won on those courts, these things weren't a debate - other than rare cases like Henman criticizing the Wimbledon changes around 2001. It took Nadal winning Wimbledon for it to become "green clay". It was even less a case for the US Open. It saw a little change around 2003 and I heard diddly squat about a slower surface. When Murray was spanking Nadal on it in 2008 and Del Potro handed him a humiliating mauling on it in 2009, detractors rubbed their hands in glee at the seemingly insurmountable challenge the fast courts of Flushing Meadows were for the Spaniard. Right until he actually won on it in 2010 and after first blaming his "cake walk" draw at the time, it's become more popular in hindsight to crow about the slowing of the court. All the conjecturing about the effects of modern racquets and court conditions take plenty away from the game in my opinion. Just give the players the credit they deserve.

mthierry wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

mthierry wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:All Nadal's Slams are on slow courts.

I think the only chink in the Nadal armour is the weeks at number 1. If he can make inroads on that, then Federer should start looking over his shoulder

All Nadal's slams are on slow court? Really? Did you think Wimbledon was a slow court when Federer couldn't touch Roddick's serve for a number of games that ran into the equivalent of 6 sets in the 2009 Wimbledon final? Or did you think the US Open courts were slow when Fed won it every year? I'm not denying there've been some change in those surfaces in the early part of the last decade but many of you sure take the discussion to the level of sensationalist hyperbole.

Are you seriously telling me that Wimbledon hasn't slown down and actually plays like a proper grass court. The reason the serves flew past Federer might have something to do with the 130mph+ bombs that Roddick could average.

If Arthur Ashe played anything like Louis Armstrong then maybe I would say it was a fast court.

To suggest otherwise is sheer madness.

Until Nadal actually won on those courts, these things weren't a debate - other than rare cases like Henman criticizing the Wimbledon changes around 2001. It took Nadal winning Wimbledon for it to become "green clay". It was even less a case for the US Open. It saw a little change around 2003 and I heard diddly squat about a slower surface. When Murray was spanking Nadal on it in 2008 and Del Potro handed him a humiliating mauling on it in 2009, detractors rubbed their hands in glee at the seemingly insurmountable challenge the fast courts of Flushing Meadows were for the Spaniard. Right until he actually won on it in 2010 and after first blaming his "cake walk" draw at the time, it's become more popular in hindsight to crow about the slowing of the court. All the conjecturing about the effects of modern racquets and court conditions take plenty away from the game in my opinion. Just give the players the credit they deserve.

In 2008 Nadal arrived at the US Open having won an Olympic gold medal on hard courts the previous week in China. In 2009 Nadal pulled a stomach muscle and was unable to put any weight on his serve. Detractors may have been rubbing there hands in glee but only because of dislike rather than any concrete evidence. Now he has swept up on American hard courts in the same way he routinely does on clay it can't possibly be because of his ability it must be his influence on court construction throughout the world

mthierry wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

mthierry wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:All Nadal's Slams are on slow courts.

I think the only chink in the Nadal armour is the weeks at number 1. If he can make inroads on that, then Federer should start looking over his shoulder

All Nadal's slams are on slow court? Really? Did you think Wimbledon was a slow court when Federer couldn't touch Roddick's serve for a number of games that ran into the equivalent of 6 sets in the 2009 Wimbledon final? Or did you think the US Open courts were slow when Fed won it every year? I'm not denying there've been some change in those surfaces in the early part of the last decade but many of you sure take the discussion to the level of sensationalist hyperbole.

Are you seriously telling me that Wimbledon hasn't slown down and actually plays like a proper grass court. The reason the serves flew past Federer might have something to do with the 130mph+ bombs that Roddick could average.

If Arthur Ashe played anything like Louis Armstrong then maybe I would say it was a fast court.

To suggest otherwise is sheer madness.

Until Nadal actually won on those courts, these things weren't a debate - other than rare cases like Henman criticizing the Wimbledon changes around 2001. It took Nadal winning Wimbledon for it to become "green clay". It was even less a case for the US Open. It saw a little change around 2003 and I heard diddly squat about a slower surface. When Murray was spanking Nadal on it in 2008 and Del Potro handed him a humiliating mauling on it in 2009, detractors rubbed their hands in glee at the seemingly insurmountable challenge the fast courts of Flushing Meadows were for the Spaniard. Right until he actually won on it in 2010 and after first blaming his "cake walk" draw at the time, it's become more popular in hindsight to crow about the slowing of the court. All the conjecturing about the effects of modern racquets and court conditions take plenty away from the game in my opinion. Just give the players the credit they deserve.

I am not detracting from Nadal's achievements at all. The courts slowing down is not something that is new. It points all in the right direction that Federer before Nadal dominated these types of courts. It's a 2 way street. The surfaces Federer won on are similar if not the same as Nadal has won on.

Sampras and Nadal played in 2 different era's that yielded different conditions, equipment and competition. Nadal's style of tennis is what is successful for the modern day player. Both Djokovic and Murray attest to this with their style of play and emphasis on conditioning and endurance. Going that extra mile does pay off nowadays whereas in Sampras's era if you had a solid fast serve and some meaty groundstrokes, what made Sampras successful apart from his serve and volleying exploits was his FH. Others tried serving bigger, but didn't have the other strokes that Sampras himself had.

It is of no fault to the players for the cards they are dealt.

I reckon Nadal would have a good shot of beating Sampras on a fast surface. But Sampras might find it a little tricky to get a win over Nadal on a slower surface and virtually impossible on clay (join the club).

With current day tech on a fast surface? Sure.
With 90's tech on the proper fast surfaces of the 90's, i don't think so.