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

[El Dude]

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.

I should have clarified: Novak is more consistent across all surfaces and the entire year.

 

[atttomole]

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.

On the 90’s grass Sampras would be ahead for sure, not the current one.

 

[Jelenafan]

On the 90’s grass Sampras would be ahead for sure, not the current one.

Oh I agree it would be more competitive, but the beauty of grass, even "slower" grass is that it all depends. What it be a overcast day after a night or morning rain with slightly faster and slicker conditions, would it be indoor roofed grass, or would it baked for several weeks in sun grass, even now?

PLus I think Sampras Serve on grass even today would be highly effective, so it would be fun if we could have seen such a Pete/Nole encounter.

 

[atttomole]

Oh I agree it would be more competitive, but the beauty of grass, even "slower" grass is that it all depends. What it be a overcast day after a night or morning rain with slightly faster and slicker conditions, would it be indoor roofed grass, or would it baked for several weeks in sun grass, even now?

PLus I think Sampras Serve on grass even today would be highly effective, so it would be fun if we could have seen such a Pete/Nole encounter.

I don't think those weather conditions would have changed things much. The grass would be still too slow for Sampras to beat Novak.

I doubt Sampras would have been highly effective, considering that his game was a bit more limited than Federer's. Federer is a good indicator of how Sampras would have fared, because their games are similar. Djokovic would have put so much pressure on Sampras's serve on this grass, and in addition he is a far better baseline player than Sampras was.

 

[Moxie]

I should have clarified: Novak is more consistent across all surfaces and the entire year.

When he is.

 

[Jelenafan]

I don't think those weather conditions would changed things much. The grass would be still too slow for Sampras to beat Novak.

I doubt Sampras would have been highly effective, considering that his game was a bit more limited than Federer's. Federer is a good indicator of how Sampras would have fared, because their games are similar. Djokovic would have put so much pressure on Sampras's serve on this grass, and in addition he is a far better baseline player than Sampras was.

Pete's game on grass was deceptively simple, break once in the set while holding serve the rest of the way.

I'm talking matchups, so to me it's irrelevant that Sampras game is more limited than Federer. My point was that Sampras on grass was highly effective and I do think he was a better/more effective volleyer than Federer. Plus I think his serve was a more potent weapon that Federer's. Thus why I think a Nole/Pete match would be a very interesting proposition.

Since we'll never know both of us of course are having fun speculation.

 

[atttomole]

Pete's game on grass was deceptively simple, break once in the set while holding serve the rest of the way.

I'm talking matchups, so to me it's irrelevant that Sampras game is more limited than Federer. My point was that Sampras on grass was highly effective and I do think he was a better/more effective volleyer than Federer. Plus I think his serve was a more potent weapon that Federer's. Thus why I think a Nole/Pete match would be a very interesting proposition.

Since we'll never know both of us of course are having fun speculation.

Fair point. We are all speculating. Sampras was able to break once and win the set, but you are assuming that Djokovic would not be able to break Sampras. I think Djokovic is good enough to break Sampras's serve.

 

[atttomole]

Pete's game on grass was deceptively simple, break once in the set while holding serve the rest of the way.

I'm talking matchups, so to me it's irrelevant that Sampras game is more limited than Federer. My point was that Sampras on grass was highly effective and I do think he was a better/more effective volleyer than Federer. Plus I think his serve was a more potent weapon that Federer's. Thus why I think a Nole/Pete match would be a very interesting proposition.

Since we'll never know both of us of course are having fun speculation.

Remember they played once and Federer won in 5 sets on fast grass, even though the match itself is not the best predictor of how their H2H would have turned out.

 

[Jelenafan]

Remember they played once and Federer won in 5 sets on fast grass, even though the match itself is not the best predictor of how their H2H would have turned out.

OMG that was 17 years ago, time flies!

I do wonder if u can calibrate the grass that finely today , ie make it a medium fast surface.

 

[atttomole]

OMG that was 17 years ago, time flies!

I do wonder if u can calibrate the grass that finely today , ie make it a medium fast surface.

I can not make a specific classification, but one thing that is clear is that the grass is slower than it used to be.

 

[Jelenafan]

I can not make a specific classification, but one thing that is clear is that the grass is slower than it used to be.

Well some people have claimed it plays almost like clay.

Arthur Ashe used to say (back in the 70’s) playing grasscourt tennis was a crapshoot because of all the bad bounces. IIRC in his journal book about a year in the tour Ashe even claimed it was sometimes better to hit a “bad” off center volley on grass because the ball would just die.

That would have been fun to watch live.

 

[nehmeth]

It comes down to four things for me:
1. Consecutive years ending as #1.
2. Varying court speeds vs. homogenized
3. Competition - who they played against.
4. Holding all 4 slam titles at the same time.

Pete wins the first two. Novak the last two. I give the greatest weight to #3. Djokovic wins.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

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.

As you know Pete's weeks at #1 is already eclipsed. The one record that Pete has and is likely to remain intact for a long time is finishing YE #1 for six years in a row.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

To me, it is a no brainer due to difference on clay. It is not that Pete did not just win RG, Pete pretty much sucked on clay. He never even reached the finals of RG. He even sucked on regular clay tourneys.