No1e > Sampras or just about?

[Moxie]

The interesting thing about this argument, in a way, is how @Mastoor puts aside the Slams as the top measure and takes in a lot of factors with more equal weight. I will hijack this thread for just a moment to address Nadal v. Sampras, which a few have mentioned, and for obvious reasons. Particularly, @britbox, and I do appreciate your generosity in saying that I've nearly persuaded you. You definitely put "Majors Count" as top criterion. As do others here, based on general familiarity with their conversation. Therefore, how does career slam with 14 not trump 14 with never having been that close at RG? If weeks at #1, general dominance, or the WTF are more secondary, I don't think Pete takes the cake. There's a bit of fuzzy math in there, along with personal preferences and prejudices. (And likely a bit of nostalgia.) Pete was never great on clay and didn't win much on it (therefore no RG) and Rafa hasn't been great or won much on indoor hards (therefore no WTF.) But RG is more important than the YEC.

As to dominance, which I know a lot of you guys like, (who can pee on the most rose bushes,) just look at the list of Most Weeks at #1:

Rank Player Total
1. Roger Federer

302
2. Pete Sampras 286
3. Ivan Lendl 270
4. Jimmy Connors 268
5. Novak Djokovic

191 *
6. John McEnroe 170
7. Rafael Nadal

141
8. Björn Borg 109
9. Andre Agassi 101
10. Lleyton Hewitt 80
11. Stefan Edberg 72
12. Jim Courier 58
13. Gustavo Kuerten 43
14. Ilie Năstase 40
15. Mats Wilander 20
16. Andy Roddick 13
17. Boris Becker 12
18. Marat Safin 9
19. John Newcombe 8
Juan Carlos Ferrero
21. Thomas Muster 6
Marcelo Ríos
Yevgeny Kafelnikov
24. Carlos Moyá 2
25. Patrick Rafter 1

You know that Rafa is sandwiched in between Roger and Nole, chronologically. And he had an injury time out that caused him to lose his #1. Being 7 on the list describes a certain amount of dominance, especially given the era (and even Mastoor in his OP speaks to the competition). Between Federer, Djokovic and Nadal they have 634 weeks at #1. That's over 12 years. Even Pete and Andre didn't always synch up in their best years. And note the precipitous drop-off between 10-15. Nadal is in rarified air on that list, with no one active below him. So he won't get passed there for a long time. Novak is still #1 with a bullet, but he's got more than a year and a half to go to pass Connors. This list won't change for some time.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled debate. But just remember, if it's not about the Majors, Novak, unfettered by competition, could have an argument against Federer even before he reaches 17. Choose your poison.

 

[Vince Evert]

Personally he bores me to tears to the point that I find it very difficult to watch tennis these days and the way the game is played. Grind fests is the trend of the day and i find it tough to watch over 3 hours of slogging it out from the baseline (hence my point on another topic that the men should play BO3 in the slams. Also in those circumstances, that would resolve the equal prizemoney issue).

 

[Mastoor]

Personally he bores me to tears to the point that I find it very difficult to watch tennis these days and the way the game is played. Grind fests is the trend of the day and i find it tough to watch over 3 hours of slogging it out from the baseline (hence my point on another topic that the men should play BO3 in the slams. Also in those circumstances, that would resolve the equal prizemoney issue).

You can always watch those "interesting" matches on youtube, like Sampras-Ivanisevic, Ivanisevic-Rafter, Rafter-Sampras. Novak's 70 minutes grinding leave to us.

 

[Mastoor]

You know that Rafa is sandwiched in between Roger and Nole, chronologically. And he had an injury time out that caused him to lose his #1. Being 7 on the list describes a certain amount of dominance, especially given the era (and even Mastoor in his OP speaks to the competition). Between Federer, Djokovic and Nadal they have 634 weeks at #1. That's over 12 years. Even Pete and Andre didn't always synch up in their best years. And note the precipitous drop-off between 10-15. Nadal is in rarified air on that list, with no one active below him. So he won't get passed there for a long time. Novak is still #1 with a bullet, but he's got more than a year and a half to go to pass Connors. This list won't change for some time.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled debate. But just remember, if it's not about the Majors, Novak, unfettered by competition, could have an argument against Federer even before he reaches 17. Choose your poison.

It must be harder to be #1 for 141 weeks before No1e and Fed and the feminist Murray, than to be 286 weeks on #1 in front of bunch of semi-pros.

 

[Vince Evert]

You can always watch those "interesting" matches on youtube, like Sampras-Ivanisevic, Ivanisevic-Rafter, Rafter-Sampras. Novak's 70 minutes grinding leave to us.

Hey take it easy. Did I say Sampras vs Ivanisevic was 'interesting' ? In fact that was an even worse period and match-up than today's tennis, what with both players serving aces at eachother. But IMHO Sampras in his hey day was naturally gifted than ND and could do more with the ball.

 

[Moxie]

It must be harder to be #1 for 141 weeks before No1e and Fed and the feminist Murray, than to be 286 weeks on #1 in front of bunch of semi-pros.

Hey, I thought you were kind to Murray about his feminist approach. I'll let the rest take you up on the "semi-pros" comment. But it certainly isn't for nothing that Nadal racked up 141 weeks. Federer did have a couple of years to himself, and Djokovic has them now. Nadal was beating them both regularly in his hey-day. If he'd only had a couple of healthy years to himself, he would be higher on that list.

 

[britbox]

Hey take it easy. Did I say Sampras vs Ivanisevic was 'interesting' ? In fact that was an even worse period and match-up than today's tennis, what with both players serving aces at eachother. But IMHO Sampras in his hey day was naturally gifted than ND and could do more with the ball.

The old boxing adage "styles make fights" also comes into play. I used to like the bigger variation in styles... particularly a good Serve and Volleyer against a good baseliner. Probably one of the main reasons I prefer the tennis in Federer v Nadal or Federer v Djokovic matchups more than Nadal v Djokovic matches... and of course I've got a dog in the fight, but even that is sometimes secondary.

 

[Mastoor]

Hey take it easy. Did I say Sampras vs Ivanisevic was 'interesting' ? In fact that was an even worse period and match-up than today's tennis, what with both players serving aces at eachother. But IMHO Sampras in his hey day was naturally gifted than ND and could do more with the ball.

Yes, he could serve and he could hit forehand and he could approach the net, all the things No1e can do. Perhaps you may look for brighter glasses through which you'll see he tennis of today in better colours

 

[Mastoor]

Hey, I thought you were kind to Murray about his feminist approach. I'll let the rest take you up on the "semi-pros" comment. But it certainly isn't for nothing that Nadal racked up 141 weeks. Federer did have a couple of years to himself, and Djokovic has them now. Nadal was beating them both regularly in his hey-day. If he'd only had a couple of healthy years to himself, he would be higher on that list.

Don't know about Murray. I hate the fact that he tries to be smart ass in his interviews after No1e's ones. He does that all the time.

The point I tried to make in this thread is that Sampras's competition was hilarious comparing to the one in last 10 years or so, so the achievements of Big 3 must have bigger weight than equivalent Sampras's. Big 3 are much more professional than Sampras or anyone else who played in his day.

 

[Vince Evert]

Yes, he could serve and he could hit forehand and he could approach the net, all the things No1e can do. Perhaps you may look for brighter glasses through which you'll see he tennis of today in better colours

Can't take it when somebody has a differing point of view to you can you, sport. BTW I note that Sampras leads in the votes over ND.

 

[Mastoor]

Can't take it when somebody has a differing point of view to you can you, sport. BTW I note that Sampras leads in the votes over ND.

People had their minds poisoned by Sampras propaganda for almost 15 years, before they started being poisoned by Federer propaganda which also implied Sampras as the best or later as the second best ever.

I was optimistic that I can still explain to at least someone that the things are not quite the way they got used to hear, but seems I was almost totally wrong.

 

[Vince Evert]

Hey Sport, if you are referring to the Sampras and/or Federer is GOAT label then I would agree with you. In fact to me they're meaningless because what defies a GOAT ?
Poll 20 tennis experts and they'll each have at least one trait different on their criterion. But to me Sampras in his hey day was a lot more gifted and could do more with the ball than either ND or even Roger Federer (who I am a fan of) for that matter.

 

[Mastoor]

No one could do more with the ball than ND, not even Rafa. Pity you don't watch No1e's matches these days, because I don't think anyone has ever played better.

 

[Vince Evert]

Yes of course he is, Buddy LOL. Just calm down and don't take differing point of views so personally.

 

[Vince Evert]

Even I wanted to watch Tennis on television it has become extremely limited over here, because of poor ratings.
One would have to take out a subscription with Fox TV (which I did so for 10 years but found it was repetitious) and they won't just let you have it for the sports channels alone, you would need to also subscribe on what they call their basic package ($45 a month), so no can do.

 

[isabelle]

Laver ahead of all players

 

[Ricardo]

No one could do more with the ball than ND, not even Rafa. Pity you don't watch No1e's matches these days, because I don't think anyone has ever played better.

Ever? pretty bold blanket statement. ND is always a player based on defence, the best offensive players can beat the best defensive players no matter how well they play..... which is why Federer with his declining offensive ability (actually just about every aspect of him is declining) can still get wins over ND in best of 3. In the past, we have Mac who eventually got past Borg with his attacking prowess. Sampras in his heyday, can hit through any defender on fast surfaces...the best offensive players have match on their racquets.

(or a guy like Wawrinka, nowhere near an all time great, just played a great attacking match to beat ND...nothing ND could do when attacking players just hit through him)

 

[brokenshoelace]

There seems to be a misconception and misinterpretation of Novak's game. To be clear, his level for a year now has been unreal, so no debate there. But I think people mistake "having no obvious weakness" for "most complete" or "ability to do the most with the ball." For instance, Federer is a more complete player than Djokovic (although I think being a complete player is overrated, especially in today's game), in the sense that he's far better at the net, a far better server, can play different brands of tennis on different surfaces (as opposed to playing one similar style across all of them). Moreover, as far as shotmaking goes, Federer is beyond anyone in history. Those genius moments, the sheer versatility of shots, the wide array of ways to finish points, etc...

And yet, I bet you Roger would trade many of these things for Novak's backhand for instance (Roger's backhand in his prime is very underrated by the way, and only one guy could exploit it, but it's nowhere near Novak's backhand). And I think, especially nowadays, being that solid from the baseline, as Novak is, and having virtually no weaknesses as far as ground strokes go, is more important than having a beautiful one handed slice or being one of the best volleyers on tour. So having a shaky overhead and an inconsistent net game is not as costly as shanking backhands. In that regard, I would call Novak a more complete baseliner to be sure, especially when you factor in just how good he is at both attacking and defense, through his effortless ability to dictate points off both wings and his insane retrieving prowess and knack for hitting ridiculous shots from impossible positions. This translates better to today's game. However, being a more complete baseliner and a more complete player are two different things, though with the dominance of baseline tennis in today's game, I can see why they're used interchangeably.

And there's also the prisoner of the moment and short term memory thing. People's perception of Fed is clouded by his last 5 years or so, which have nonetheless been pretty good. I honestly think most have forgotten (or at least don't recall vividly) what his game was like in his prime.

 

[Federberg]

I know this is controversial, but personally I have Rafa and the Pistol pretty much tied at the moment. Dominance is very important for me (defined by weeks at number 1, more so than the year end ranking which is just a trick of the calendar as far as I'm concerned). It's just opinions and that's mine for now. I also think that YEC are important by the way. A few more tournament wins and I'll say that Rafa edges it. That doesn't discredit Rafa as far as I'm concerned because Sampras was special too.

 

[DarthFed]

^ I think that's fair. Having the career slam vs. not having one and not even being remotely good on clay (in Sampras' case) is a huge deal. But Sampras has a couple other big boxes checked (time and overall years at #1 and YEC's). As much as it pains me to say it I'd probably put Wafa a little ahead.