pistol p is second to nobody. better than nadal and up there with roger another generation they would duel it out
Federer Sampras Djokovic/Nadal/Borg/McEnroe Becker/Agassi/Edberg Most exciting to watch: Becker vs. Agassi
No love for Roy Emerson? Won every Grand Slam at least twice, won every Grand Slam in doubles multiple times as well. In addition won Davis Cup 8 times. Best of all, I put him over Federer. Not to mention old tennis rackets were smaller.
No way…look into Nadal's history. Look at his record against top 30 players…and look at his record against top 10 players. Then, add to it that he has won on every surface, despite coming into the game as a "clay player". Winning the French Open 9 out of 10 years is absolutely insane, which Sampras could never do on his surface, grass. And then throw in the fact that Nadal was able to win twice on the completely opposite surface (Wimbledon)….and lost 3 times in the Wimbledon finals (twice to Federer, the GOAT and once to Joker, a top 5 all-time player). Meanwhile, Sampras couldn't even get to the finals in the French Open, which is a huge X against him. Basically, Nadal was more dominant on clay than Sampras was on grass…PLUS, Nadal was able to win on every other surface (5 Wimbledon finals appearances) while Sampras was basically useless on clay (0 trips to the finals of the French Open). Also, Nadal played in an era with Federer and Joker, which makes it all the more impressive…while Sampras's biggest competition was Agassi, Rafter or washed up Courier, washed up Becker.
yes and when the competition was a joke. No thanx. Federer played in an era with true professionals, men who train from young age to do what they do and the competition is million light years better than emerson's epoch. ALL his major titles came before the open era.
It was Sampras until the recent wave of Federer, Nadal and Joker who all have a solid case to pass him once their careers ends Fed has already surpassed Sampras
agreed agreed agreed. People forget that Nadal was labeled a clay court specialist for too many years, and it was the growth of his game, all the elements he managed to add, the improvement in his serve that made him become in force in other surfaces too. Sampras was more one dimensional in the end. I hate Nadal but I respect him.
Not sure who else is selling him short, other than one of the first repliers. I already said that between the two, Agassi's baseline game would translate much better to "today's" game vs. that of Sampras. If he had taken fitness/training more seriously in his prime years (where his talent was unmatched), he would have obliterated the overall GS record. I still believe he's top 5 in total GS semi-final matches played, a lot of those he got to based on just talent alone.
Djokovic has clearly moved ahead of Nadal IMO. He has been dominating the other 3 "big 4" members for a while now after a bit of a slow start to his career. Nadal at his peak might have been the best of the 3, but his peak was a very brief period. Outside of that 08-10 stretch, he has only won 1 major aside from Roland Garros. Djokovic has been playing spectacular all court tennis for 5 years now, and shows no sign of slowing. He is even beating Nadal on clay with regularity. Nadal still has a slight head to head advantage, mainly due to his early clay court dominance, but he won't have the head to head for long. Djokovic has an outside chance to pass Federer if he ages well and can win 1 or 2 french opens.
YEAH no. Nadal is the best in history in clay. What he has done is out of this world, unimaginable. And that " dominating the other 3 for a while now after a bit of a slow start at his carreer" conveniently comes at the time that Federer is too old. And Nadal tennis wise is old as well. Remember the guy is playing from age 16 he has TONS of mileage on his body esp with his playing style. And why is Murray even included in the big 4
Nadal is only 11 months older. You don't get extra credit for flaming out quickly. And Djokovic started beating Federer the same time Nadal did. Nadal is no doubt the best Clay court player, but Djokovic is the better all court player.
You don't get credit for winning more earlier either? Nadal does have 5 more majors than Djoker. And a couple of those were against peak Federer who most people have as the GOAT. The argument against Sampras is the level of competition. Nadal actually went against both Federer and Djokovic's prime and came out with 14 majors. Djokovic being clearly ahead of Nadal is so reactionary and a complete joke IMO
true but Nadal has mostly flamed out at this point while Djokovic seems to be hitting his peak and will have a chance a catch up to Nadal in terms of major titles. He's miles ahead of all competition for almost 2 years now and will continue to dominate because Nadal and Federer are both getting to retirement age. Nadal's lack of longevity is probably what's keeping him away from the GOAT discussion. Being healthy and not pull out of tournament when you are in your 20's is part of being great
Tennis is weird man. You just drop off after hitting your peak. There's pretty much no one like Federer. But that's what makes Nadal so great to me, all of his titles are against peak competition. Djoker at least gets to have Nadal and Fed on the decline. Nadal went up against the GOAT and held his own.
You're speaking as if Djokovic just came on the tour or something... he's been playing at a #1 level for a pretty long time now... with peaks that overlap the peaks of Federer and Nadal. When looking at all these guys (the older guys included), they're ALL great... it comes down to identifying weaknesses. Nadal was unstoppable on clay... and while he did succeed on the other surfaces as well, it was only for a brief time while he was at his most physical peak (ahem, juiced). Meanwhile, Djokovic has been consistently great on all surfaces for almost his entire pro career... to the point that lately, its almost expected that he's going to be in the finals of any tournament he's in. So, while the other guys are now on the decline, Djokovic has maintained his greatness for several years... and appears to show no signs of slowing down. Not sure you can really blame a "timing" issue on his longevity.
