Rafa Nadal winning seven Roland Garros prove dominance ? Check yes.
Is Roger Federer's seventh Wimbledon title a proof of his dominance at Wimbledon? Check yes.
Now comes the better question: Which one has more merit?
From 1993 to 2000 Pete Sampras amassed a 53-1 record. His only lost came to Richard Krajicek in 1996 Quarterfinal match, but let's talk about his victories:
-In 1993 Sampras defeated Agassi -defending champ-, Becker -3 time champ- and Courier -#2 of the world- en route to the title.
-In 1994 Sampras had an "easier" time, defeating Chang, Martin but had to face Ivanisevic at the finals.
-In 1995 he had Henman, Rusedski, a 5 setter semi-final against Ivo again, and Becker in the finals.
-1997 was perhaps the easiest run: only southpaw Korda in the round of 16 and Becker in the quarter finals were threats. Pioline in the finals wasn't.
-1998 had Enqvist, Philippoussis, Henman and Ivo again in a 5-setter final.
-1999 had a complex draw repeating Henman in the semis and Agassi in the final.
-2000 wasn't a tough draw but Sampras was injured all through the tournament, until he faced Rafter in the finals.
So all through the 7 title run, Sampras had to cope up with past champions, ex and future #1s, baseliners, serve and volleyers, right handed, left handed and even a recurrent injury. The one thing that we have to keep in mind is that Sampras was expected to win every match, every time. To picture Sampras losing was as good as picturing the North Pole melting. From 1992 and 2001 Sampras three losses came from Ivanisevic, Krajicek, and Federer. All three of them ended up winning the title at some point. Sampras not only killed the competition, he prevented everyone and anyone from winning at Wimbledon.
Now let's do Nadal.
In 2005 Nadal debuted in his first Roland Garros to begin a sick winning streak that has only been interrupted by Robin Soderling, pretty much the same way Krajicek interrumpted Sampras'. Let's take a look at Nadal's opposition:
-From 2005 to 2012, Nadal has blanked anyone that holds a racket. His only constant regular opponent has been Roger Federer, whom he has defeated not one, or two...but FIVE times.
There is one thing we have to consider when we analyze Nadal's dominance: Nadal has been dominant at Paris, but he has also been dominant at every other clay tournament. He has won Montecarlo eight times, Rome five times, Madrid four times, Barcelona six times. With the exception of Novak Djokovic's back to back wins at Rome and Madrid last year, Nadal has KILLED anyone, everyone and anything and everything that stands in his way. Let me put it this way: to picture Nadal losing on clay, is like picturing both the North and South pole melting, and having the resulting water evaporate five seconds later.
Unlike Sampras, Nadal hasn't faced any past champions, ex #1s, killer clay court players or native specialists, because he smashes all rivals the same. Think about it this way, if Nadal wasn't around, Federer, Ferrer, Djokovic, Ferrero, Nalbandian, Almagro, all of them would have more titles.
Now let's do Roger.
From 2003 to 2012 Federer faced two constant rivals: Andy Roddick and Rafael Nadal, meeting both of them in three finals each, winning five and losing one. If we are honest, we will admit that like it or not, Roddick is not a player of the same caliber of Roger (evidently shown by Roger's 20-3 record against him). Nadal on the other hand, lost to Roger in the 2006 and 2007 finals, the first time being quite one sided, and the second time quite quite close. It was so close that Nadal made the necessary adjustments and defeated Roger the following year.
Other than Roddick and Nadal, Roger faced a bunch of baseliners, retrievers and bulldogs. He had his fare amount of scares here and there, but at the end of the day, he was always expected to win -pretty much like Sampras-. Also like Nadal, Roger never faced former champions, ex #1s or grass specialists, but this is also part because Pete Sampras' dominance period came right before his, so technically Pete would have been the only ex #1, past champion Roger could have faced.
So let's summarize and conclude:
As today Roger, Pete and Rafa are tied at seven titles in one Grand Slam. Regardless of how you look at it, this is a once in a lifetime achievement and it will be a long time before we get to see another player do it.
Therefore, when it comes to compare the three champions, I would say Sampras has more merit because he faced a tougher competition, but it is Nadal hands down the one who clearly stands above the rest of his peers as a true dominant player, and then comes Federer as the champion who separated himself apart from his peers, at least until the true challengers came up.
It will always be interesting to debate and discuss the success of the three legends and that is why I wanted to write today's entry, as a tribute to them and to the legacy that they have left in our lives.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario