Officially, Rafa has surpassed Sampras

[Front242]

yup, second-best player ever so far.

and the best ever is?

Well, that's moot really. Until someone beats or equals Federer's records that is.

Or Jimbo's 109 tourny record.

No one will beat that for quite some time but remember many of those tournaments were complete mickey mouse affairs 'cos he played so long. With serve alone someone like Karlovic could win Newport at 40 years of age or more imo.

 

[crystalfire]

massive respect for what he has done but tbh it has all been pretty much on clay.

No, not really.

just saying if you look at all the major titles: 9/14 slams on clay. 19/27 masters clay.

That's still far from "all pretty much on clay."

true but thats about 70% clay titles. compare that to sampras or feds where they have won everything equally on all surfaces (except clay haha). not taking anything away from rafa here but his records do scream clay which is one reason to me sampras is still above rafa. as of now.

 

[brokenshoelace]

massive respect for what he has done but tbh it has all been pretty much on clay.

No, not really.

just saying if you look at all the major titles: 9/14 slams on clay. 19/27 masters clay.

That's still far from "all pretty much on clay."

true but thats about 70% clay titles. compare that to sampras or feds where they have won everything equally on all surfaces (except clay haha). not taking anything away from rafa here but his records do scream clay which is one reason to me sampras is still above rafa. as of now.

Well you said it yourself, Sampras did not win much on clay. Personally, I'd rather win everywhere, even if the majority of these wins are on one surface, than having my wins spread out across a few surfaces while missing out completely on one surface.

By the way, Nadal has 5 slams outside of clay. Sampras has 7 slams outside of grass. It's really NOT that big of a difference. Sampras won half of his majors on one surface. Nadal won over half of his majors on one surface, but he's won majors on all of the surfaces, which counts for more.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I wonder if asked, would Nadal exchange three RG titles with one more slam on each surface for legacy purposes, or is he happy with the way things are?

 

[brokenshoelace]

I wonder if asked, would Nadal exchange three RG titles with one more slam on each surface for legacy purposes, or is he happy with the way things are?

I really don't think he would. He probably would have had he been missing one of the other slams, but since he won them all, I don't think so. These players are so proud of their achievements, and for Nadal, winning the FO as much as he did is what makes him who he is. Bringing up legacy is fair, but really, being so unbeatable at the French IS Nadal's legacy, and I'd argue it probably makes him stand out more than if his slams were more spread out. I'm not saying it makes him better, I'm just saying it makes him stand out more. Because 20 years from now, when you talk about "unbeatable," Rafael Nadal at the French Open is probably going to be as close as it's going to get.

 

[TennisFanatic7]

^ What he said. I'm not even sure Sampras would have swapped one of his Wimbledons for a Garros title for similar reasons.

 

[nehmeth]

yup, second-best player ever so far.

and the best ever is?

Well, that's moot really. Until someone beats or equals Federer's records that is.

Or Jimbo's 109 tourny record.

That's the record for longevity, but not the best ever.

 

[El Dude]

Officially Rafa is pretty damn awesome.

 

[Riotbeard]

Officially Rafa is pretty damn awesome.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

He really is a great talent and does deserve a lot respect...

It's gonna be hard for me to be rational about this one. As a fan of any sport, it has been by far the toughest loss for me. (it is just a sport, so I have kept my grief rational)

 

[El Dude]

Officially Rafa is pretty damn awesome.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

He really is a great talent and does deserve a lot respect...

It's gonna be hard for me to be rational about this one. As a fan of any sport, it has been by far the toughest loss for me. (it is just a sport, so I have kept my grief rational)

I hear you. I honestly thought Novak was going to win, but Rafa is just too overwhelming on clay.

If I were a Novak fan I'd be more concerned with the fact that he wasn't won any of the last five Slams and hasn't won a non-AO Slam since 2011. Now there's nothing to be ashamed about in Novak's record, but he's now 6-7 in Slam finals and 1-5 in his last six. That must be very frustrating, both for him and his fans.

 

[Fiero425]

I deny this topic entirely! When Rafa gets a couple more Wimbledons and USO's, maybe I'll come around! Sampras has 12 of those majors while Rafa has only 4; PLEASE! 9 FO's don't equate to 9 other majors; sorry! That's my final word on it!

 

[El Dude]

I deny this topic entirely! When Rafa gets a couple more Wimbledons and USO's, maybe I'll come around! Sampras has 12 of those majors while Rafa has only 4; PLEASE! 9 FO's don't equate to 9 other majors; sorry! That's my final word on it!

So let's see:

SAMPRAS
hard: 7
grass: 7
clay: 0

NADAL:
hard: 3
grass: 2
clay: 9

I don't know why you write off Rafa's clay court dominance when in actuality his overall Slam umbrella is wider than Pete's. Pete never won on clay - actually, he never came close, making it to the SF just once. Rafa, on the other hand, not only won multiple Slams on each court type, but played in six hard finals and five grass finals. Not a bad resume.

This is not to say that his vastly better play on clay and comparatively more mundane hard and grass performance shouldn't be accounted for. It is also worth noting, for instance, that of his 27 Master's titles only 8 are on surfaces other than clay. But even if we artificially take out his clay performances, he's still a great non-clay player. And of course we can't really take out clay. Last time I checked, clay court matches counted too!

 

[Front242]

Here's what Pete has to say about this

 

[Fiero425]

I deny this topic entirely! When Rafa gets a couple more Wimbledons and USO's, maybe I'll come around! Sampras has 12 of those majors while Rafa has only 4; PLEASE! 9 FO's don't equate to 9 other majors; sorry! That's my final word on it!

So let's see:

SAMPRAS
hard: 7
grass: 7
clay: 0

NADAL:
hard: 3
grass: 2
clay: 9

I don't know why you write off Rafa's clay court dominance when in actuality his overall Slam umbrella is wider than Pete's. Pete never won on clay - actually, he never came close, making it to the SF just once. Rafa, on the other hand, not only won multiple Slams on each court type, but played in six hard finals and five grass finals. Not a bad resume.

This is not to say that his vastly better play on clay and comparatively more mundane hard and grass performance shouldn't be accounted for. It is also worth noting, for instance, that of his 27 Master's titles only 8 are on surfaces other than clay. But even if we artificially take out his clay performances, he's still a great non-clay player. And of course we can't really take out clay. Last time I checked, clay court matches counted too!

Honey, didn't I say that was the final word? Wimbledons and USO's are worth more than FO clay event in the history of this game; sorry! The FO was so out there, most players skipped it; never missing the other majors of W & USO! That's the way it is; I should know being in the game for over 40 years!

 

[El Dude]

Honey, didn't I say that was the final word? Wimbledons and USO's are worth more than FO clay event in the history of this game; sorry! The FO was so out there, most players skipped it; never missing the other majors of W & USO! That's the way it is; I should know being in the game for over 40 years!

Huh? I assume you're just joking around? Or maybe you are confusing the French Open with the Australian Open?

 

[Fiero425]

Honey, didn't I say that was the final word? Wimbledons and USO's are worth more than FO clay event in the history of this game; sorry! The FO was so out there, most players skipped it; never missing the other majors of W & USO! That's the way it is; I should know being in the game for over 40 years!

Huh? I assume you're just joking around? Or maybe you are confusing the French Open with the Australian Open?

The AO was the worst in the history of the game because it was just a horrible event; the grass, wind, bugs, and of course how long it took to get there! It's now a very nice tourney and everyone goes now; Rafa might as well not! He's more likely to get upset there it seems! And I'm not kidding! :snigger :laydownlaughing

 

[Kieran]

Rafa plays now, not then. In his own era, and against the players he's faced, Rafa is clearly the greatest player...

 

[brokenshoelace]

I deny this topic entirely! When Rafa gets a couple more Wimbledons and USO's, maybe I'll come around! Sampras has 12 of those majors while Rafa has only 4; PLEASE! 9 FO's don't equate to 9 other majors; sorry! That's my final word on it!

So let's see:

SAMPRAS
hard: 7
grass: 7
clay: 0

NADAL:
hard: 3
grass: 2
clay: 9

I don't know why you write off Rafa's clay court dominance when in actuality his overall Slam umbrella is wider than Pete's. Pete never won on clay - actually, he never came close, making it to the SF just once. Rafa, on the other hand, not only won multiple Slams on each court type, but played in six hard finals and five grass finals. Not a bad resume.

This is not to say that his vastly better play on clay and comparatively more mundane hard and grass performance shouldn't be accounted for. It is also worth noting, for instance, that of his 27 Master's titles only 8 are on surfaces other than clay. But even if we artificially take out his clay performances, he's still a great non-clay player. And of course we can't really take out clay. Last time I checked, clay court matches counted too!

Honey, didn't I say that was the final word? Wimbledons and USO's are worth more than FO clay event in the history of this game; sorry! The FO was so out there, most players skipped it; never missing the other majors of W & USO! That's the way it is; I should know being in the game for over 40 years!

I think you've been in the game a little too long...

 

[Ricardo]

I deny this topic entirely! When Rafa gets a couple more Wimbledons and USO's, maybe I'll come around! Sampras has 12 of those majors while Rafa has only 4; PLEASE! 9 FO's don't equate to 9 other majors; sorry! That's my final word on it!

So let's see:

SAMPRAS
hard: 7
grass: 7
clay: 0

NADAL:
hard: 3
grass: 2
clay: 9

I don't know why you write off Rafa's clay court dominance when in actuality his overall Slam umbrella is wider than Pete's. Pete never won on clay - actually, he never came close, making it to the SF just once. Rafa, on the other hand, not only won multiple Slams on each court type, but played in six hard finals and five grass finals. Not a bad resume.

This is not to say that his vastly better play on clay and comparatively more mundane hard and grass performance shouldn't be accounted for. It is also worth noting, for instance, that of his 27 Master's titles only 8 are on surfaces other than clay. But even if we artificially take out his clay performances, he's still a great non-clay player. And of course we can't really take out clay. Last time I checked, clay court matches counted too!

Honey, didn't I say that was the final word? Wimbledons and USO's are worth more than FO clay event in the history of this game; sorry! The FO was so out there, most players skipped it; never missing the other majors of W & USO! That's the way it is; I should know being in the game for over 40 years!

"FO was out there and most players skipped it", and you've been in the game for over 40 years? you must have been blind or really need to get your head checked out.

if you know anything about tennis, you'd know the two most important surfaces to start with for majors was on clay and grass. Hardcourt was a later invention, where did you spend your 40 years?

also about your double standard, in your equation you put Sampras's AO with equal weight as other majors but suddenly Nadal's FO is so out there that it weighs LESS?

in the game for 40 years my ar*e :laydownlaughing

 

[isabelle]

Sampras's record was fantastic 15 years ago, today it seems beatable for several players. Same for all sports, records of yesterday aren't so great today