No1e > Sampras or just about?

[britbox]

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.

When comparing players from the current or recent eras, yes I do count majors as the biggest criteria... but that changes for other eras. Still, it's not the only criteria - far from it.

Rafa and Pete are tied at 14 and yes, Rafa has the career grand slam but Pete also spent twice as long at #1 and to me he always seemed a more dominant player among his peer group.

 

[Moxie]

When comparing players from the current or recent eras, yes I do count majors as the biggest criteria... but that changes for other eras. Still, it's not the only criteria - far from it.

Rafa and Pete are tied at 14 and yes, Rafa has the career grand slam but Pete also spent twice as long at #1 and to me he always seemed a more dominant player among his peer group.

Understood, and I think we all do take other factors into account, especially where Slam counts are equal. I will say that I think "dominance" gets fairly narrowly defined by weeks at #1, and year-end #1. I can point out that Nadal had the h2h advantage over all of the other Big Four since there was one, until a few months ago, which is about 6-7 years. There are very few players who have had a notable h2h advantage over him. (Well, one, really: Davydenko, who I think retired at 5-4.) And I have mentioned that Rafa went into the 2013 USO with a winning record against every seeded player. (Djokovic may be there about now, but I'll let Mastoor do that research.) Wouldn't you say that was a lot of dominance over his peer group? Add to that that he is the greatest player on clay. (Pete's got a claim on grass, but shares it with Roger.) And lastly, I think it's fair to see that Roger got a major head start on Nadal in weeks at #1, and Novak, besides his early win at AO, has been a late-bloomer at the top, and is benefitting from a 'field in transition.' (I stole that phrase from someone else, I think.) If you're going to go to secondary criteria, as you might call them, after Slams, I think you have to examine them a bit more deeply. Even @Twisted was able to give Rafa the edge, which I appreciate, as I know how much it pained him to write it.

 

[Vince Evert]

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.

Good on you Buddy. A well-considered and balanced post. Been a pleasure to read.

 

[Ricardo]

Understood, and I think we all do take other factors into account, especially where Slam counts are equal. I will say that I think "dominance" gets fairly narrowly defined by weeks at #1, and year-end #1. I can point out that Nadal had the h2h advantage over all of the other Big Four since there was one, until a few months ago, which is about 6-7 years. There are very few players who have had a notable h2h advantage over him. (Well, one, really: Davydenko, who I think retired at 5-4.) And I have mentioned that Rafa went into the 2013 USO with a winning record against every seeded player. (Djokovic may be there about now, but I'll let Mastoor do that research.) Wouldn't you say that was a lot of dominance over his peer group? Add to that that he is the greatest player on clay. (Pete's got a claim on grass, but shares it with Roger.) And lastly, I think it's fair to see that Roger got a major head start on Nadal in weeks at #1, and Novak, besides his early win at AO, has been a late-bloomer at the top, and is benefitting from a 'field in transition.' (I stole that phrase from someone else, I think.) If you're going to go to secondary criteria, as you might call them, after Slams, I think you have to examine them a bit more deeply. Even @Twisted was able to give Rafa the edge, which I appreciate, as I know how much it pained him to write it.

but we are really comparing Nole vs Pete, no? good effort on Rafa vs Pete though

 

[Ricardo]

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.

u really like the balance game don't you? makes you look neutral, just not real genuine. the above basically amounts to nothing.

 

[Moxie]

but we are really comparing Nole vs Pete, no? good effort on Rafa vs Pete though

Thanks, I appreciate that. Yes, the OP is about Nole v. Pete. And I did apologize for hijacking the thread, but others wanted to debate it. While I have said Mastoor makes an interesting argument on Novak v Sampras, no one really thinks Djokovic is there, yet, so it's much easier to debate the two that have 14 Majors. It's a natural progression of a discussion.

 

[Moxie]

u really like the balance game don't you? makes you look neutral, just not real genuine. the above basically amounts to nothing.

No, he gives them the tie, which is a valid position. It's not actually neutral...it's an opinion.

 

[Ricardo]

Thanks, I appreciate that. Yes, the OP is about Nole v. Pete. And I did apologize for hijacking the thread, but others wanted to debate it. While I have said Mastoor makes an interesting argument on Novak v Sampras, no one really thinks Djokovic is there, yet, so it's much easier to debate the two that have 14 Majors. It's a natural progression of a discussion.

calm down woman, it's actually not a bad topic and deserves a thread of its own.

actually Borg vs Sampras would be a good debate too.

 

[Moxie]

calm down woman, it's actually not a bad topic and deserves a thread of its own.

actually Borg vs Sampras would be a good debate too.

I'm perfectly calm. I just responded. Feel free to start any thread. Both are interesting topics.

 

[Federberg]

u really like the balance game don't you? makes you look neutral, just not real genuine. the above basically amounts to nothing.

Balance? Genuine? What are you talking about mate? Anyone who knows my views knows I'm no fan of Nadal, nor did I particularly like Sampras. Just expressing an objective view

 

[Ricardo]

Balance? Genuine? What are you talking about mate? Anyone who knows my views knows I'm no fan of Nadal, nor did I particularly like Sampras. Just expressing an objective view

exactly my point, you are always trying too hard (to be 'objective')!

 

[Moxie]

exactly my point, you are always trying too hard (to be 'objective')!

While it might surprise you, some people don't have to try hard at all.

 

[Federberg]

A truly bizarre comment. Why wouldn't I want to be objective? One things for sure, I'm not making much of an effort! I'm not that invested

 

[Ricardo]

While it might surprise you, some people don't have to try hard at all.

i can spot a try-hard can you?

 

[Ricardo]

A truly bizarre comment. Why wouldn't I want to be objective? One things for sure, I'm not making much of an effort! I'm not that invested

not much of an effort? its like saying Rafa has the most physically relaxed game then again, nobody is stopping you to try 'very' hard

 

[Federberg]

^You're not making much sense mate. But I'll leave you to it. It's my opinion

 

[Mastoor]

I didn't understand what was that argument about above.

Just to add that Britbox added a video in which Sampras said that he was overtaken by 3 players which means he assumes 11 sometimes can be more than 14.

Today I was reminded that No1e has 1 less title won than his childhood idol 63:64, so it crossed my mind to compare their achievements at current No1e's age. Sampras had 12 Slams and 11 Masters to No1e's 11 and 28.

One more funny fact, No1e has as many Masters won as Agassi and Sampras combined.

 

[Moxie]

In fairness, the Masters series was only consolidated into a thing in 1990, at the early stages of Agassi's and Sampras' careers. It's a very modern construct, and so gunning for them is also fairly new. I would say really only Fed, Rafa and Nole are the first that made people care about that count.

 

[Ricardo]

In fairness, the Masters series was only consolidated into a thing in 1990, at the early stages of Agassi's and Sampras' careers. It's a very modern construct, and so gunning for them is also fairly new. I would say really only Fed, Rafa and Nole are the first that made people care about that count.

you are right about that, the whole Slam count thing only took off when Sampras and media in the 90s built it up and now it comes to MS count as a major measurement of greatness? players in the 90s and prior regularly skipped them and nobody was counting it...so as soon as Rafa got a record no and now Novak takes even more their fans all hype it up as if it's the holy grail.... sheer blindness.

 

[Ricardo]

I didn't understand what was that argument about above.

Just to add that Britbox added a video in which Sampras said that he was overtaken by 3 players which means he assumes 11 sometimes can be more than 14.

Today I was reminded that No1e has 1 less title won than his childhood idol 63:64, so it crossed my mind to compare their achievements at current No1e's age. Sampras had 12 Slams and 11 Masters to No1e's 11 and 28.

One more funny fact, No1e has as many Masters won as Agassi and Sampras combined.

yet another delusional take by a Nole fan.... Sampras assumes Nole will overtake his record, not 11>14. But clearly you have no idea what a fair comparison is, Sampras never chased MS records as he knew his greatness wasn't built on that. He said so many times that it was about the slams.

Agassi won more MS than Sampras, i didn't see anyone taking that into consideration....ever. The funny fact is your need to talk up everything Nole does.....