Is Djokovic and Sampras are now equal in All-Time-Great ?

[TMF]

Now that Nole has tie Sampras with 14 slams apiece, who do you believe is ahead on the list of all time great between them? Or do you believe they are dead even? I think it's debatable since there are cases that one can argue for either one.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

I'd say Djokovic because I don't think Sampras would have won 14 slams in an era where Federer/Nadal are both playing. Also Djokovic has had success on clay while Sampras has really struggled there. That being said, Sampras has definitely become kind of underrated now that Fed, Rafa and Nole are surpassing his records, but he still is amazing.

However what Sampras has over Djokovic and even Nadal/Federer is that he was the undisputed greatest player of his era, almost doubling the slams of his biggest rival Agassi and way over the likes of Becker, Edberg, Courier, Rafter or whoever. So it depends on how you look at it.

 

[GSMSampras]

Sampras played in an era where there was no surface homogenization and there were actual surface specialists.He won all his slams in 16 seed system.

 

[monfed]

Pete's still the better, more complete player for me.

 

[britbox]

I'd probably have Djokovic higher. The clay court resume is the difference maker.

 

[Moxie]

I'd probably have Djokovic higher. The clay court resume is the difference maker.

I appreciate this from you, because you came around as the same question came up when Nadal tied Pete. Interesting points from @GSMSampras above, though. No one has yet mentioned weeks at #1, which I thought was a stalwart in these discussions.

 

[El Dude]

Novak. In fact, I think he passed Pete after his "Nole Slam" in 2016, even with a lowly 12 Slams. He's a more well-rounded all-surface player, court homogenization be damned.

The other factor is that Novak peaked alongside two other megastars in Fedal. Pete rose in the very competitive late 80s to early 90s era, but by the time he got to his prime years, most of those guys were past their prime and the only other all-time great in his prime was Agassi. OK, Becker was still pretty good into the mid-90s, but no one like Fedal to compete with, and not the host from the 80s.

The other tarnish on Pete's armor is longevity. He started declining in his late 20s and retired at 31. Novak is having a resurgence at 31.

Anyhow, in another year or so this will be a moot point as Novak will pad his numbers enough to blow past Pete in almost every way.

 

[El Dude]

I appreciate this from you, because you came around as the same question came up when Nadal tied Pete. Interesting points from @GSMSampras above, though. No one has yet mentioned weeks at #1, which I thought was a stalwart in these discussions.

This fits into the Fedal factor I mentioned above. After Slam titles, I think weeks at #1--and perhaps YE1--are the most important assessment of greatness. Novak's 223 isn't so bad at all, but is particularly impressive when you consider the competition. Who did Pete have to compete with for that #1 ranking all those years? Some good and great players, but almost entirely lesser greats - no truly dominant players. And of course Novak is far from done, so once he probably overtakes Rafa later this year, he has a solid chance of catching up to Pete, or at least narrowing the gap.

2004-18+ has been a pretty rough time to be a tennis player, especially if you're interested in winning Slams and/or being #1. I think part of Fedalkovic's greatness is the fact that they all managed to carve out a tremendous resume, despite each other.

 

[Moxie]

This fits into the Fedal factor I mentioned above. After Slam titles, I think weeks at #1--and perhaps YE1--are the most important assessment of greatness. Novak's 223 isn't so bad at all, but is particularly impressive when you consider the competition. Who did Pete have to compete with for that #1 ranking all those years? Some good and great players, but almost entirely lesser greats - no truly dominant players. And of course Novak is far from done, so once he probably overtakes Rafa later this year, he has a solid chance of catching up to Pete, or at least narrowing the gap.

2004-18+ has been a pretty rough time to be a tennis player, especially if you're interested in winning Slams and/or being #1. I think part of Fedalkovic's greatness is the fact that they all managed to carve out a tremendous resume, despite each other.

I think you're right about Pete and his era. I'm sorry to my Sampras fan friends, but he's never blown my skirt up in any way. Obviously, I'm not interested in Djokovic passing Rafa, as I don't think he's really the superior player between the two. The great rivalry of this era is Federer v. Nadal, and Novak has hit some opportunistic points when they were lesser. (Waiting for the blow-back...three, two, one. B-) )

Anyway, fully agreed that 2004-18+ is a rough time not to be Fedalovic. Three all-time greats manhandling the competition and hogging up most of the prizes. I agree with you on what I bolded above. When it wasn't one or two of them, it was all 3. Murray still gets my vote as the 4th Beatle, for hanging so tough with them. Isn't he the only guy to get to #1 besides them, in this era? Stan is just an anomaly, and del Potro is an unfortunate case of the one who could have changed things, but for injury. No one else really deserves that we waste our breath, including Cilic, IMO.

 

[El Dude]

I think you're right about Pete and his era. I'm sorry to my Sampras fan friends, but he's never blown my skirt up in any way. Obviously, I'm not interested in Djokovic passing Rafa, as I don't think he's really the superior player between the two. The great rivalry of this era is Federer v. Nadal, and Novak has hit some opportunistic points when they were lesser. (Waiting for the blow-back...three, two, one. B-) )

Anyway, fully agreed that 2004-18+ is a rough time not to be Fedalovic. Three all-time greats manhandling the competition and hogging up most of the prizes. I agree with you on what I bolded above. When it wasn't one or two of them, it was all 3. Murray still gets my vote as the 4th Beatle, for hanging so tough with them. Isn't he the only guy to get to #1 besides them, in this era? Stan is just an anomaly, and del Potro is an unfortunate case of the one who could have changed things, but for injury. No one else really deserves that we waste our breath, including Cilic, IMO.

Well, I won't give you blow-back but we've disagreed on that in the past and still disagree. I'm tempted to say that Rafa has been better at his best and Novak more consistent, but Novak at his best is pretty fearsome - and better than Rafa on hards and grass, although Rafa gets the crown of being the best player in history on a specific surface. I was saying this back in 2016, that Novak deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as Fedal, and even has a chance to surpass them. 2011 was not "opportunistic;" Rafa was every bit the same player he was in 2010, probably his best year, but Novak was just better. 2015 was more opporutunistic, but part of what makes great players great is being opportunistic.

I would even argue that Novak-Rafa is a better rivalry because of their similar ages, and because their prime years matched up better. We've never really seen peak Roger and peak Novak go at it, but we've seen peak Roger and peak Rafa (or at least close enough), and peak Rafa vs. peak Novak.

As for the second part, I think it is rough for those three as well because they've had to compete with each other. But I also think it has made them better players. And yeah, Murray is a great player in his own right. In a different era he would have been right there with the Edbergs and Beckers of the world. And yeah, he is the only other #1. The next #1 before the Big Four was Andy Roddick, last #1 in early 2004.

Delpo will always be a what if story, but my take is that at best he would have been another Andy Murray: won a Slam here and there, but remained in a lower tier than the Bigger Three. But we might have been talking about a Big Five, or a Big Three + Two.

 

[atttomole]

This is a no-brainer. Djokovic is now ahead of Sampras.

 

[DarthFed]

Well, I won't give you blow-back but we've disagreed on that in the past and still disagree. I'm tempted to say that Rafa has been better at his best and Novak more consistent, but Novak at his best is pretty fearsome - and better than Rafa on hards and grass, although Rafa gets the crown of being the best player in history on a specific surface. I was saying this back in 2016, that Novak deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as Fedal, and even has a chance to surpass them. 2011 was not "opportunistic;" Rafa was every bit the same player he was in 2010, probably his best year, but Novak was just better. 2015 was more opporutunistic, but part of what makes great players great is being opportunistic.

I would even argue that Novak-Rafa is a better rivalry because of their similar ages, and because their prime years matched up better. We've never really seen peak Roger and peak Novak go at it, but we've seen peak Roger and peak Rafa (or at least close enough), and peak Rafa vs. peak Novak.

As for the second part, I think it is rough for those three as well because they've had to compete with each other. But I also think it has made them better players. And yeah, Murray is a great player in his own right. In a different era he would have been right there with the Edbergs and Beckers of the world. And yeah, he is the only other #1. The next #1 before the Big Four was Andy Roddick, last #1 in early 2004.

Delpo will always be a what if story, but my take is that at best he would have been another Andy Murray: won a Slam here and there, but remained in a lower tier than the Bigger Three. But we might have been talking about a Big Five, or a Big Three + Two.

Agree with a lot of this but clearly Novak at his best is a better player than Nadal at his best. Nadal is actually the more consistent one especially on clay where he is by far the best player there's ever been on a surface. But who wins a match between Nole and Rafa at their bests on grass, slow hard, fast hard, indoor hard? Easy answer. Rafa's most dominant year would be Djokovic's third best year and Roger's 4th best year. The "Rafa at his best is the best" talk is a Nadal movement that you've strangely/lazily latched onto.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

It is hard to overlook the clay disparity so the edge would go to Nole for sure. But I cannot help myself but think how much better Pete would be on grass and fast hards and carpet that was a super fast surface.

 

[Moxie]

Well, I won't give you blow-back but we've disagreed on that in the past and still disagree. I'm tempted to say that Rafa has been better at his best and Novak more consistent, but Novak at his best is pretty fearsome - and better than Rafa on hards and grass, although Rafa gets the crown of being the best player in history on a specific surface. I was saying this back in 2016, that Novak deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as Fedal, and even has a chance to surpass them. 2011 was not "opportunistic;" Rafa was every bit the same player he was in 2010, probably his best year, but Novak was just better. 2015 was more opporutunistic, but part of what makes great players great is being opportunistic.

I would even argue that Novak-Rafa is a better rivalry because of their similar ages, and because their prime years matched up better. We've never really seen peak Roger and peak Novak go at it, but we've seen peak Roger and peak Rafa (or at least close enough), and peak Rafa vs. peak Novak.

As for the second part, I think it is rough for those three as well because they've had to compete with each other. But I also think it has made them better players. And yeah, Murray is a great player in his own right. In a different era he would have been right there with the Edbergs and Beckers of the world. And yeah, he is the only other #1. The next #1 before the Big Four was Andy Roddick, last #1 in early 2004.

Delpo will always be a what if story, but my take is that at best he would have been another Andy Murray: won a Slam here and there, but remained in a lower tier than the Bigger Three. But we might have been talking about a Big Five, or a Big Three + Two.

I will disagree with you that Novak is more consistent than Rafa. He won a Major, then went 3 years without one. He went on a tear, then didn't beat Rafa at Majors for 3 more years. He won the Nole Slam when there was no one to defy him, then went walk-about for 2 years. Nadal is the only player to have won a Major in each of 10 consecutive years.

 

[Moxie]

Agree with a lot of this but clearly Novak at his best is a better player than Nadal at his best. Nadal is actually the more consistent one especially on clay where he is by far the best player there's ever been on a surface. But who wins a match between Nole and Rafa at their bests on grass, slow hard, fast hard, indoor hard? Easy answer. Rafa's most dominant year would be Djokovic's third best year and Roger's 4th best year. The "Rafa at his best is the best" talk is a Nadal movement that you've strangely/lazily latched onto.

You're trying to make some pretzel logic out of when each dominated. You completely ignore when Nadal dominated Djokovic earlier in their careers, as did Roger. Doesn't that count? I've read you to complain that Roger was geriatric when losing to Djokovic. If you're going to move the needle as to when one dominated the other, you should be consistent. I won't pretend that Novak hasn't had Rafa's number, in many ways. But there were many years when Rafa had Novak's. It took Djokovic well into 2015 to finally get past Rafa in the H2H. Some folks try to then say that Rafa and Nole are basically contemporaries. Fine. But then no excuses for why Novak couldn't get ahead of Rafa for basically 10 years. It's all complicated when each of them were at there best, innit?

 

[DarthFed]

You're trying to make some pretzel logic out of when each dominated. You completely ignore when Nadal dominated Djokovic earlier in their careers, as did Roger. Doesn't that count? I've read you to complain that Roger was geriatric when losing to Djokovic. If you're going to move the needle as to when one dominated the other, you should be consistent. I won't pretend that Novak hasn't had Rafa's number, in many ways. But there were many years when Rafa had Novak's. It took Djokovic well into 2015 to finally get past Rafa in the H2H. Some folks try to then say that Rafa and Nole are basically contemporaries. Fine. But then no excuses for why Novak couldn't get ahead of Rafa for basically 10 years. It's all complicated when each of them were at there best, innit?

Pretzel logic? You keep teaching new things, I like it! I could roll with pretzels at any time

Nadal and Djokovic are much closer in age obviously. I guess one way to look at it is Roger broke out in 2003, Nadal in 2005 and Nole in 2007 but the latter two are a year apart. Since Nadal was great at such a young age we got some of Fed vs Nadal in their primes. This simply did not happen with Fed and Djokovic as the latter took a few years to really step up to the next level. But we've seen plenty of Nadal and Djokovic against each other at or near their best and we know it isn't pretty for Rafa. Of course the early ownage and achievements count, otherwise Djokovic would be way far ahead in majors and head to head.

 

[Mastoor]

I won't say anything, because Dude and Darth already said everything that I think about this.

 

[isabelle]

Sampras has gold medal but Nole has one RG (maybe more one day)....

 

[Jelenafan]

It’s a hard one because Sampras has the 6 YE #1’s, for now still the Open record for men. That normally would trump most other stats.

However Nole has the better overall record plus the Nole Slam so I give him the edge

Having said that, H2H Sampras on grass, fast hard courts, indoor HC would probably come out ahead.

 

[El Dude]

Agree with a lot of this but clearly Novak at his best is a better player than Nadal at his best. Nadal is actually the more consistent one especially on clay where he is by far the best player there's ever been on a surface. But who wins a match between Nole and Rafa at their bests on grass, slow hard, fast hard, indoor hard? Easy answer. Rafa's most dominant year would be Djokovic's third best year and Roger's 4th best year. The "Rafa at his best is the best" talk is a Nadal movement that you've strangely/lazily latched onto.

You didn’t read what I wrote closely enough. I said I was “tempted” but then went into detail refuting that notion, pointing out that while Rafa on clay is the best ever, Novak at his best was better everywhere else.