Is Nadal Better than Sampras?

First topic message reminder :

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. 

laverfan wrote:

Nice Graph LF  

Nice graph laverfan. But I think there is a little mistake. The Sampras chart starts when he was 17 whereas the Nadal chart starts when he was 16. You have to compare like with like. You need to start Nadals chart in 2003. Then it will give a realistic picture of how they compare. More evidence that Nadal is the best

To compare like for like they'd both have to be playing the same opponents at the same age in the same conditions with the same technology and the same biomechanics, fitness and dietary knowledge.

Have to say I'm not sure what the number of matches played per year tells us. What is the point being made?

JuliusHMarx wrote:To compare like for like they'd both have to be playing the same opponents at the same age in the same conditions with the same technology and the same biomechanics, fitness and dietary knowledge.

So because we can't do all those things we may as well compare their abilities at different ages too?

No, just pointing out that it's pretty much impossible to reach a definitive conclusion - only one that each individual is happy with. Rafa fans will no doubt be happier believing Rafa is better, although the psychology behind that i.e. why a fan is happier if both they (the fan) and other people view 'their' player more highly than other players, is perhaps best left for another time.

JuliusHMarx wrote:No, just pointing out that it's pretty much impossible to reach a definitive conclusion - only one that each individual is happy with. Rafa fans will no doubt be happier believing Rafa is better, although the psychology behind that i.e. why a fan is happier if both they (the fan) and other people view 'their' player more highly than other players, is perhaps best left for another time.

Not sure I agree with that JM.. it doesn´t make me any happier to know  others believe what I do or not.My opinion is not just based on the fact that I am a fan.. I have given my reasons based on what I have seen of both players. Whether I was a fan of Rafa or not.  As you rightly point out it is  impossible to reach any definitive conclusion. As with all comparisons made of players from different eras conclusions can only be made from statistics. But how many times do we see the score line of a match we never watched  that never actually tells the story.??? We draw conclusions and our opinion is based on that.. but so often it would have been different had we  actually seen it.

I wouldn't say it applies to every individual, but if you were to ask, say, a bunch of Liverpool fans who the best team in history was, Liverpool or Man U, very few would be able to bring themselves to say Man U - it would simply go against their belief system. They simply wouldn't contemplate it, even if the evidence was there. Also they would try to convince neutrals that Liverpool were the best - because they don't want other people thinking Man U are better.
We've all seen some Fed and Rafa fans spend a lot of serious time and effort in the same process - it matters to them, rightly or wrongly (I would suggest wrongly to a large extent). No doubt Borg and Mac fans did the same thing, but without the internet, there was a limit to how many people they could reach to try to 'convert'.

hawkeye wrote:Nice graph laverfan. But I think there is a little mistake. The Sampras chart starts when he was 17 whereas the Nadal chart starts when he was 16. You have to compare like with like. You need to start Nadals chart in 2003. Then it will give a realistic picture of how they compare. More evidence that Nadal is the best

I would assume that LF has gone for the year that each player turned pro, which makes a lot of sense.

Seems like you've made up your mind on this issue at any rate, hawkeye. Unsurprisingly.

hawkeye wrote:Nice graph laverfan.

Thanks....

hawkeye wrote:But I think there is a little mistake. The Sampras chart starts when he was 17 whereas the Nadal chart starts when he was 16.

I knew there would definitely be a but...

hawkeye wrote:You have to compare like with like. You need to start Nadals chart in 2003. Then it will give a realistic picture of how they compare. More evidence that Nadal is the best

Like-for-like, but not identical samples...

Silver wrote:I would assume that LF has gone for the year that each player turned pro, which makes a lot of sense.

Sampras is 1988, Nadal is 2001, but did not have ATP matches in 2001.

Silver wrote:Seems like you've made up your mind on this issue at any rate, hawkeye. Unsurprisingly.

The individuality and uniqueness of a Nadal or a Sampras is worth much more than comparisons. iC chose an interesting topic. 13 and 14 are close, but not like-for-like either. 14 v 14 would not be the same either. The body of work from either is very impressive.

To have Fedal, peers for some years, and to have such a history, is amazing. I used to think Laver-Rosewall or Borg-McEnroe or Agassi-Sampras were new heights, what is now on show is simply fantastic.

hawkeye wrote:If you take out Nadal and Federer from your quarter final stats. And for the sake of argument why not as these are the two players who have proved their adaptability then the two era's look much the same.

Ah, just noticed this bit in one of your earlier posts (not sure if I missed it on the first read or if you edited it in later).  The geek in me just cannot help but go through the numbers.  Once we start removing players, it is a bit trickier to decide what constitutes an apples-to-apples comparison, but I think this is reasonably meaningful:

Over 10 years, there are 80 opportunities (8 per year) for players to make QF of both Wimbledon and RG in the same year.

In 2004-2013, this happened 29 times, out of which 13 were Roger/Rafa.  This means that the remaining players accounted for 16 ( = 29 - 13 ) cases out of 67 ( = 80 - 13 ) opportunities.  This gives a success rate of 24% ( 16 / 67 ).

In 1994-2003, it happened 10 times that a player made QF of both RG and Wimbledon.  To try to make it apples-to-apples with 2004-2013, we should probably throw out the two players who did it most often during this period - i.e., Agassi (3x) and Sampras (2x).  This means that remaining players did it 5 ( = 10 - 5 ) times out of 75 ( = 80 - 5 ) opportunities, giving them a success rate of 7% ( 5 / 75 ).

I would say even without Federer and Rafa, we still have a very meaningful gap.

summerblues wrote:

hawkeye wrote:If you take out Nadal and Federer from your quarter final stats. And for the sake of argument why not as these are the two players who have proved their adaptability then the two era's look much the same.

Ah, just noticed this bit in one of your earlier posts (not sure if I missed it on the first read or if you edited it in later).  The geek in me just cannot help but go through the numbers.  Once we start removing players, it is a bit trickier to decide what constitutes an apples-to-apples comparison, but I think this is reasonably meaningful:

Over 10 years, there are 80 opportunities (8 per year) for players to make QF of both Wimbledon and RG in the same year.

In 2004-2013, this happened 29 times, out of which 13 were Roger/Rafa.  This means that the remaining players accounted for 16 ( = 29 - 13 ) cases out of 67 ( = 80 - 13 ) opportunities.  This gives a success rate of 24% ( 16 / 67 ).

In 1994-2003, it happened 10 times that a player made QF of both RG and Wimbledon.  To try to make it apples-to-apples with 2004-2013, we should probably throw out the two players who did it most often during this period - i.e., Agassi (3x) and Sampras (2x).  This means that remaining players did it 5 ( = 10 - 5 ) times out of 75 ( = 80 - 5 ) opportunities, giving them a success rate of 7% ( 5 / 75 ).

I would say even without Federer and Rafa, we still have a very meaningful gap.

Great stats.  

yes, we all know surfaces are more similar now than in the 90s

naxroy wrote:yes, we all know surfaces are more similar now than in the 90s

NaxRoy.. very happy to see you here. Welcome to 606v2.

well, for some reason people rarely post nowadays in mtl
I didnt even remember I had this account

but its great to meet you guys here

nice forum btw

naxroy wrote:well, for some reason people rarely post nowadays in mtl
I didnt even remember I had this account

but its great to meet you guys here

nice forum btw

The website availability of MTL is no longer viable. I try and visit, if I can. Hope you continue to post here as well.

Nadal is currently 61-3 (including Davis Cup - as of today - losses - Djokovic, Darcis, Zeballos).

He next plays China Open (5 potential matches), Shanghai (5 potential matches), Basel (5 potential matches), Paris (5 potential matches) and WTF (5 potential matches). Assuming no withdrawals, 25 matches in total.

It can give him a possible 86-3 W/L for the season. He will beat McEnroe's 82-3 (1984 - losses - Sundstrom, Amritraj, Lendl) and Federer's 81-4 (2005 - losses - Nalbandian, Nadal, Safin, Gasquet) records.

A single loss would mean 85-4, while two loses put him at 84-5, and so on...

It would be stellar achievement in an already excellent career. Can he do it?

Paris/WTF are not favourite grounds for him, though. He has lost to Lopez and Schuettler at Basel in his last two appearances in 2003-2004.

laverfan wrote:Nadal is currently 61-3 (including Davis Cup - as of today - losses - Djokovic, Darcis, Zeballos).

He next plays China Open (5 potential matches), Shanghai (5 potential matches), Basel (5 potential matches), Paris (5 potential matches) and WTF (5 potential matches). Assuming no withdrawals, 25 matches in total.

It can give him a possible 86-3 W/L for the season. He will beat McEnroe's 82-3 (1984 - losses - Sundstrom, Amritraj, Lendl) and Federer's 81-4 (2005 - losses - Nalbandian, Nadal, Safin, Gasquet) records.

A single loss would mean 85-4, while two loses put him at 84-5, and so on...

It would be stellar achievement in an already excellent career. Can he do it?

Paris/WTF are not favourite grounds for him, though. He has lost to Lopez and Schuettler at Basel in his last two appearances in 2003-2004.

This is the one of the big things missing in Nadal's cv and he is intended to correct it, he certainly need a dominant year like that, and these stats are compiled with the help of just 2 slams thou.

summerblues. I guess you can mess about a lot with stats but I was just removing the two players who had proved their versatility on both surfaces by winning and getting to the finals of both Wimbledon and RG on numerous occasions. That would have reduced the difference to 10 - 16. I didn't realize that Sampras ever made the quarters at RG! I suppose he was helped by his seeding  I don't suppose you have worked out similar stats for semi's and finals as they would be interesting to see?

laverfan. I do really like your chart but it makes little sense comparing Nadal at 16 when he played just 2 ATP matches with Sampras at 17 when he played 20. When Nadal was 17 he played a similar amount to Sampras (25). The chart would then make far more sense because then you could compare their performances at the same age. Is it really fair to continue the chart in this odd way when eventually you would be comparing a 29 year old Nadal with a 30 year old Sampras.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I wouldn't say it applies to every individual, but if you were to ask, say, a bunch of Liverpool fans who the best team in history was, Liverpool or Man U, very few would be able to bring themselves to say Man U - it would simply go against their belief system. They simply wouldn't contemplate it, even if the evidence was there. Also they would try to convince neutrals that Liverpool were the best - because they don't want other people thinking Man U are better.
We've all seen some Fed and Rafa fans spend a lot of serious time and effort in the same process - it matters to them, rightly or wrongly (I would suggest wrongly to a large extent). No doubt Borg and Mac fans did the same thing, but without the internet, there was a limit to how many people they could reach to try to 'convert'.

I've noticed that you are not immune to this either :whistle:What makes you so sure Man U are better than Liverpool?

hawkeye wrote:summerblues. I guess you can mess about a lot with stats but I was just removing the two players who had proved their versatility on both surfaces by winning and getting to the finals of both Wimbledon and RG on numerous occasions. That would have reduced the difference to 10 - 16. I didn't realize that Sampras ever made the quarters at RG! I suppose he was helped by his seeding

But didn't Sampras even make the semis once at RG? Nobody can say that you base your knowledge only on Wikipedia hawky!!

^ I have never claimed to know much about Sampras Zzzzzz....

^^

This is a great thread. I usually find the "who is better / the GOAT" threads quite tedious, and just a way for people to eulogise about their favourite player. There's a bit of that of course, but there are some tremendous posts too.

Summerblues in particular has made some excellent posts with rock solid stats. Great stuff.  

hawkeye wrote:summerblues. I guess you can mess about a lot with stats but I was just removing the two players who had proved their versatility on both surfaces by winning and getting to the finals of both Wimbledon and RG on numerous occasions. That would have reduced the difference to 10 - 16. I didn't realize that Sampras ever made the quarters at RG! I suppose he was helped by his seeding  I don't suppose you have worked out similar stats for semi's and finals as they would be interesting to see?

laverfan. I do really like your chart but it makes little sense comparing Nadal at 16 when he played just 2 ATP matches with Sampras at 17 when he played 20. When Nadal was 17 he played a similar amount to Sampras (25). The chart would then make far more sense because then you could compare their performances at the same age. Is it really fair to continue the chart in this odd way when eventually you would be comparing a 29 year old Nadal with a 30 year old Sampras.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I wouldn't say it applies to every individual, but if you were to ask, say, a bunch of Liverpool fans who the best team in history was, Liverpool or Man U, very few would be able to bring themselves to say Man U - it would simply go against their belief system. They simply wouldn't contemplate it, even if the evidence was there. Also they would try to convince neutrals that Liverpool were the best - because they don't want other people thinking Man U are better.
We've all seen some Fed and Rafa fans spend a lot of serious time and effort in the same process - it matters to them, rightly or wrongly (I would suggest wrongly to a large extent). No doubt Borg and Mac fans did the same thing, but without the internet, there was a limit to how many people they could reach to try to 'convert'.

I've noticed that you are not immune to this either :whistle:What makes you so sure Man U are better than Liverpool?

I've no idea if Man U or Liverpool are better - that's not the point though is it?
I don't recall trying to make the players I've really been a fan of (Henman, Agassi, Connors) sound better than I thought they were, especially in comparison to their rivals. I might write a post or two about Connors in relation to Mac or Lendl, but if someone reckons they're both better than Jimbo, fair enough - maybe they were, it's hard to say for sure. For me the enjoyment is the argument, not the result. That's why I've enjoyed summerblues posts on this thread - excellent reasoning and supporting evidence.

laverfan wrote:

Silver wrote:I would assume that LF has gone for the year that each player turned pro, which makes a lot of sense.

Sampras is 1988, Nadal is 2001, but did not have ATP matches in 2001.

Silver wrote:Seems like you've made up your mind on this issue at any rate, hawkeye. Unsurprisingly.

The individuality and uniqueness of a Nadal or a Sampras is worth much more than comparisons. iC chose an interesting topic. :rose:13 and 14 are close, but not like-for-like either. 14 v 14 would not be the same either. The body of work from either is very impressive.

To have Fedal, peers for some years, and to have such a history, is amazing. I used to think Laver-Rosewall or Borg-McEnroe or Agassi-Sampras were new heights, what is now on show is simply fantastic.

Thanks LF, almost right! It's an enlightening graph at any rate, thanks. Yes, it's a very impressive body of work from both, and I still feel relatively indecisive about it. Good topic to analyse and discuss objectively. It's going to be fascinating to see what Nadal does next year, as he could potentially go a long way towards putting this argument to bed and set his sights on Federer. Alternatively, he could falter again. Who knows?

Of course, to many, Borg-Mac is still the rivalry!

JuliusHMarx wrote:

hawkeye wrote:summerblues. I guess you can mess about a lot with stats but I was just removing the two players who had proved their versatility on both surfaces by winning and getting to the finals of both Wimbledon and RG on numerous occasions. That would have reduced the difference to 10 - 16. I didn't realize that Sampras ever made the quarters at RG! I suppose he was helped by his seeding  I don't suppose you have worked out similar stats for semi's and finals as they would be interesting to see?

laverfan. I do really like your chart but it makes little sense comparing Nadal at 16 when he played just 2 ATP matches with Sampras at 17 when he played 20. When Nadal was 17 he played a similar amount to Sampras (25). The chart would then make far more sense because then you could compare their performances at the same age. Is it really fair to continue the chart in this odd way when eventually you would be comparing a 29 year old Nadal with a 30 year old Sampras.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I wouldn't say it applies to every individual, but if you were to ask, say, a bunch of Liverpool fans who the best team in history was, Liverpool or Man U, very few would be able to bring themselves to say Man U - it would simply go against their belief system. They simply wouldn't contemplate it, even if the evidence was there. Also they would try to convince neutrals that Liverpool were the best - because they don't want other people thinking Man U are better.
We've all seen some Fed and Rafa fans spend a lot of serious time and effort in the same process - it matters to them, rightly or wrongly (I would suggest wrongly to a large extent). No doubt Borg and Mac fans did the same thing, but without the internet, there was a limit to how many people they could reach to try to 'convert'.

I've noticed that you are not immune to this either :whistle:What makes you so sure Man U are better than Liverpool?

I've no idea if Man U or Liverpool are better - that's not the point though is it?
I don't recall trying to make the players I've really been a fan of (Henman, Agassi, Connors) sound better than I thought they were, especially in comparison to their rivals. I might write a post or two about Connors in relation to Mac or Lendl, but if someone reckons they're both better than Jimbo, fair enough - maybe they were, it's hard to say for sure. For me the enjoyment is the argument, not the result. That's why I've enjoyed summerblues posts on this thread - excellent reasoning and supporting evidence.

OK then who do you think is better Nadal or Sampras and why? Or do you like to keep your opinion a secret? (Or maybe you don't have an opinion) Ha ha! I promise I won't cry if you don't think the same as me. Because of course the fun is in the argument.

Silver wrote:

laverfan wrote:

Silver wrote:I would assume that LF has gone for the year that each player turned pro, which makes a lot of sense.

Sampras is 1988, Nadal is 2001, but did not have ATP matches in 2001.

Silver wrote:Seems like you've made up your mind on this issue at any rate, hawkeye. Unsurprisingly.

The individuality and uniqueness of a Nadal or a Sampras is worth much more than comparisons. iC chose an interesting topic. :rose:13 and 14 are close, but not like-for-like either. 14 v 14 would not be the same either. The body of work from either is very impressive.

To have Fedal, peers for some years, and to have such a history, is amazing. I used to think Laver-Rosewall or Borg-McEnroe or Agassi-Sampras were new heights, what is now on show is simply fantastic.

Thanks LF, almost right! It's an enlightening graph at any rate, thanks. Yes, it's a very impressive body of work from both, and I still feel relatively indecisive about it. Good topic to analyse and discuss objectively. It's going to be fascinating to see what Nadal does next year, as he could potentially go a long way towards putting this argument to bed and set his sights on Federer. Alternatively, he could falter again. Who knows?

Of course, to many, Borg-Mac is still the rivalry!

As far as rivalry's go no men are even close to Navratalova and Evert. Over 15 years they played each other 80 times. Most of the time in finals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evert%E2%80%93Navratilova_rivalry

Only 80 times ????

Pah !

These guys met over 140 times ........

http://www.theage.com.au/news/tennis/a-rivalry-for-the-ages/2006/01/28/1138319489965.html

hawkeye wrote:OK then who do you think is better Nadal or Sampras and why? Or do you like to keep your opinion a secret? (Or maybe you don't have an opinion) Ha ha! I promise I won't cry if you don't think the same as me. Because of course the fun is in the argument.

My opinion was the 4th post of the thread. Ha ha!

somebody said before that monte carlo was more like a 500 tournament. well its true that for the last 5 years it hasnt been mandatory, but it was in nadal´s first 4 wins. and anyway, not only it is a masters1000, but one of the most traditional ones.
in 2009 all top players but roddick attended.
the rest of years since 2009 most top players enter the draw, and meaningful absences are no more than 1 or 2 in the top 10 each year.
what I mean is, not a single 500 tournament manages to have the draw that montecarlo has even though its not mandatory

that sounded like a ridiculous way of trying to underrate nadal´s masters count.


other thing is even though we are comparing nadal with sampras, some of us have already talked about goat in this thread, be it talking about nadal, sampras or federer.
in this goat discussion it amazes me how we forget about the pre open era, specially about those players that played in the pro circuit. laver, rosewall and gonzalez have tones of titles
why do overlook those? how where pro tournaments less important than actual grand slams? answers?

naxroy wrote:in this goat discussion it amazes me how we forget about the pre open era, specially about those players that played in the pro circuit. laver, rosewall and gonzalez have tones of titles
why do overlook those? how where pro tournaments less important than actual grand slams? answers?

Like Nadal's injuries forcing him out of slams/tourneys, the ProAm divide can also be considered a hindrance to possible matches that could have otherwise happened.

Laver was literally absent for 4 years, as was Pancho. The Professional Circuit is chided for smaller draws, but people forget, very conveniently, that today's WTF is based on the same playing model, as yesterday's Pro tourney. None of these players from yesteryears are any less athletic then the players of today (modern technology notwithstanding).

For example -

the Draw from 1956 French Pro Championship - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Pro_Championship_Draws#1956

the Draw from 1996 Grand Slam Cup - http://www.atpworldtour.com/Share/Event-Draws.aspx?e=604&y=1996

the Draw from 2010 WTF - http://www.atpworldtour.com/posting/2010/605/mds.pdf   (Warning: This link opens a PDF file and requires the Adobe Reader).

The pre-open era was exactly that not really open to all. Making a living from tennis was rare indeed and only those with financial independence were able to compete freely. It was a "gentleman's or gentlewoman's" game and as such the field was limited. Those waxing lyrical about players in the past should perhaps bare that in mind.

I can remember (dimly) watching a documentary about the commentator Dan Maskell who was apparently a very good player in his youth but was restricted to "pro" events for financial reasons.

So if Fed and Rafa had been born 70 years earlier, with the same tennis skills, they could not have been considered greats?

if you could combine both players, that would be good, Sampras serve and Rafa's baseline rallying behind it, Sampras aggression combined with Rafa's error rate. You would also have an ambidextrous player with two monster forehands and no backhands!

Henman Bill wrote:if you could combine both players, that would be good, Sampras serve and Rafa's baseline rallying behind it, Sampras aggression combined with Rafa's error rate. You would also have an ambidextrous player with two monster forehands and no backhands!

And would be untouchable on Clay and Grass


Would you just get Borg?!

hawkeye wrote:The pre-open era was exactly that not really open to all. Making a living from tennis was rare indeed and only those with financial independence were able to compete freely.

I would strongly recommend reading Laver's biography to dispel this myth. just a short snippet...

Rodney George Laver was the product of a tennis family. The third of four children, Laver was born on August 9, 1938, in Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia. His father, Roy, a cattle rancher, was one of 13 children, all tennis players.  When Roy went looking for a wife, he found Melba Roffey, another tennis player, at a tournament in the Queensland town of Dingo. Married, the couple had a tennis court next to every house they ever lived in, and it was not untypical for the father to cook dinner while his wife was outside playing tennis with the kids. Melba and Roy played singles and mixed doubles in every tournament they could in and around Rockhampton, winning them all, and soon their four children were following in their footsteps, winning in a variety of age categories. Rod Laver began challenging his older brothers when he was six, using a hand-me-down racquet with a sawed-down handle to fit him. When he was thirteen, Laver, small for his age, took on his brother Bob in the junior final of the Central Queensland championship. As the match was an all-Laver event, it was held on the Laver's court, and Rod—barely able to see over the net—narrowly lost to his older brother.

Here is a snippet from Pancho's biography...

Richard Alonso "Pancho" Gonzales, born in Los Angeles in 1928, was the son of Mexican immigrants Manuel and Carmen Gonzales. When Manuel was a child, he walked with his father 900 miles, from Chihuahua, Mexico, to Arizona. He later settled in South Central Los Angeles, where he met and married Carmen, and worked as a housepainter (not unlike a certain Mr. Ferrer, who worked in construction. ). Despite his father's strictness, Gonzales, one of seven children, was often a wild and unruly child.

When Gonzales was twelve years old, he asked for a bicycle for Christmas, but his mother gave him a 50-cent tennis racquet instead. Gonzales instantly took to tennis, teaching himself how to play on the public courts of Los Angeles . He played as often as he could, and by the time he was fourteen he was winning tournaments in his age group.

After two years of high school, Gonzales dropped out so that he could devote himself to tennis full time. The decision would hurt him, though, because as a dropout he was banned from many junior tournaments. Turned away from tennis, Gonzales became a trouble-maker. At fifteen he was caught burglarizing houses. "You don't know the thrill of going out the back window when someone's coming in the front door," he once told his brother Ralph, as quoted by S.L. Price in Sports Illustrated.

hawkeye wrote:It was a "gentleman's or gentlewoman's" game and as such the field was limited. Those waxing lyrical about players in the past should perhaps bare that in mind.

Nobody bares anything (unless one is part of a certain class of professions), but they do bear things in their minds.

hawkeye wrote:I can remember (dimly) watching a documentary about the commentator Dan Maskell who was apparently a very good player in his youth but was restricted to "pro" events for financial reasons.

Not everyone is born with a Silver Spoon to feed them. Not everyone has the financial wherewithal to train at Home. Just bear that in mind.

ChequeredJersey wrote:Would you just get Borg?!

The one that Melted when ranked 4 and lost his desire to play or similar to the current 30+ generations. I admire Borg, but it would have been to his benefit to continue to play, because he lost touch with the game, when he attempted his comeback. I would consider McEnroe the stronger, who played on till 1992, or Sampras.

Danny_1982 wrote:This is a great thread. I usually find the "who is better / the GOAT" threads quite tedious, and just a way for people to eulogise about their favourite player. There's a bit of that of course, but there are some tremendous posts too.

Summerblues in particular has made some excellent posts with rock solid stats. Great stuff.  

Thx Danny  , and what followed is great set of arguments from both sides.  

JuliusHMarx wrote:So if Fed and Rafa had been born 70 years earlier, with the same tennis skills, they could not have been considered greats?

Now you putting HE head into serious turmoil .   

Just to wrap it up from my end:

hawkeye wrote:summerblues. I guess you can mess about a lot with stats but I was just removing the two players who had proved their versatility on both surfaces by winning and getting to the finals of both Wimbledon and RG on numerous occasions. That would have reduced the difference to 10 - 16.

Agree that once you start "messing about" - e.g., removing players - it becomes trickier to make sure it is still "apples-to-apples".  It may be that the way I had set it up is not optimal.  But you certainly cannot just take out two best players from one period and then compare the remaining players against everyone from the other period - that definitely introduces bias into your data.

If, in spite of that, you still want to just throw out Rafa and Roger, then the conclusion will have to look sort of like this:  "we still see 10-16 advantage for the 2004-2013 period, in spite of biasing the data by removing top two performers from that period".

For reference, here is the complete list of players that made QF of RG and W in the same year in those two periods:

2004-2013:
8x - Federer
5x - Nadal, Djokovic
3x - Murray
2x - Ferrer
1x - Hewitt, Henman, Ancic, Berdych, Soderling, Tsonga

1994-2003:
3x - Agassi
2x - Sampras
1x - Ivanisevic, Kafelnikov, Krajicek, Kuerten, Federer

As you can see, it is by no means just Federer and Nadal who bucked the trend and are reaching QF at both tournaments - in fact Djokovic did it as many times as Rafa.

To me, this data is quite convincing.  Of course, as I had said initially, if you choose to stand your ground and stick to your opinion, I will not be able provide proof positive that conditions have converged.  At the end of the day, if you think, for example, that Andy is on that list three times because he is an all-time great equal to or better than the likes of Sampras and Agassi, but with the bad luck of playing alongside even greater greats, these numbers alone cannot disprove that.

Anyway, this was an interesting debate.

Cheers.

why from 1994? why not from the beginning of their career? I mean, the frontier is still there in 2001 when the change happened

sampras did it 4 times (92-96)
agassi did it 5 times (91-2001)
ivanisevic did it 3 times (91-94)
edberg did it 3 times (89-93)


I mean I know you want 10 years vs ten years, but ...

So far for me it's Sampras, reasonably comfortably ahead given that the RG/W double was almost impossible in his days, and his #1 feats were prodigious (I think equal of Fed's).  For me, to overhaul Sampras Nadal needs a bit more time at #1, a higher slam count than Sampras, and to have a more weighty showing in his second best slam than he does at present.
 
They are both guys who adapted their games to suit the conditions they faced almost to perfection.  I think Sampras faced a tougher task to stay on top in his career because he was an aggressive player and an aggressive game on faster conditions is more of a crapshoot; if your opponent gets into the game he can rush you out of it and Sampras had opponents who were capable of doing that throughout his career, but he succumbed very rarely (good examples are Krajicek, Stich, Becker, Ivanisevic, Rafter).  If you have worked out your style to take maximum advantage of a surface like clay you have a better chance to re-group and assert your superiority over the course of a match.  For the same reason, I'd say mental strength comes more easily to someone whose way of playing means he knows he has the relative luxury of waiting - Sampras had less of a chance to turn it on to win at a moment of his choosing.  Recently Nadal has become more aggressive so that may be more of a comment on his past than present and future.
 
We'll never know - but for me the one huge difference between the guys is what would Nadal have been like without modern strings, and what would Sampras have been like with them?

The list of players in SB's post is interesting. If the reason why it was now easier to do well in both was due to the grass slowing down I would expect a bunch of clay courters to be appearing. However, in fact we have the likes of Berdych, Soderling, Henman and Tsonga - players who would always have succeeded at wimbledon. So the question is surely why are all these players doing well at the French?

The exception is Ferrer. However his record at Wimbledon was relatively dreadful until the last couple of years. He has clearly improved his fast court game over that time and, althiugh he isnt a grass court specialist, I am not sure on his own he proves thst conditions have changed dramatically.

Isn't Wimbledon pretty quick with a pretty low bounce in the first week, only to slow dramatically and play like green clay in the second week? More than being outright slow?

ChequeredJersey wrote:Isn't Wimbledon pretty quick with a pretty low bounce in the first week, only to slow dramatically and play like green clay in the second week? More than being outright slow?

Definetly Wimbledon plays much slower in the second week compared to the 1st week, main reason is wear and tear on the courts once play started.

Much slower? I think it is slightly quicker but just stays lower, hence why nadal has had a lot of tough matches over the years in the first week, perhaps more so than in the 2nd week when it sits up more.
Was it much slower in the lightning fast 90's in the 2nd week compared to the 1st?

A lot of love for Rafa in this article...

http://www.latinospost.com/articles/28249/20130923/rafael-nadal-news-update-rafa-numbers-prove-s-greatest.htm

^ But... but... but how can Nadal be better than Federer if he isn't even better than Sampras?

I wonder, back in the olden days of julius, when sampras was in his pomp, did the courts slow down significantly in the second week then too?

falzy21 wrote:I wonder, back in the olden days of julius, when sampras was in his pomp, did the courts slow down significantly in the second week then too?

Not so much, because all the wear and tear was not at the back of the court. Also the wear and tear on the court didn't matter so much because players used to approach the net and play a shot called a 'volley'. If you watch old footage you will see what a volley is
The different type of grass may have caused more slowing down in recent years as well.

Volley? Isnt that what pretty girls do on sand? I dont think that has a place in the sophisticated world of tennis.