PDA

View Full Version : RF: 1 more W to become the greatest W champion in history!


aphex
12-19-2011, 11:16 AM
I'm sure we all hope he makes it!

Nathaniel_Near
12-19-2011, 11:17 AM
I would still consider Sampras to be greater...

aphex
12-19-2011, 11:20 AM
I would still consider Sampras to be greater...

Pretty irrelevant. They would have the same no. of wins and Fed would one more final.

Plus, I don't remember Pete going 6 years undefeated on grass.

helloworld
12-19-2011, 11:24 AM
Pretty irrelevant. They would have the same no. of wins and Fed would one more final.

Plus, I don't remember Pete going 6 years undefeated on grass.

Neither did Federer. :oops:

celoft
12-19-2011, 11:25 AM
It would be great if he won 7 Wimbledons.

He would have tied the open era record at the AO(4 with Agassi), Wimbledon(7 with Sampras) and USO(5 with Connors and Sampras).

dudeski
12-19-2011, 11:26 AM
Neither did Federer. :oops:

Sure he did. Unless he played on grass before he turned 6.

DjokovicForTheWin
12-19-2011, 11:30 AM
I would still consider Sampras to be greater...

But why???????

helloworld
12-19-2011, 11:32 AM
He did not lose a grass court match from June 2002 to June 2008.

That's 6 years dummy. Do you need some arithmetic lessons?
Federer won 5 straight Wimbledon before losing to Nadal in his 6th attempt, so no, he did not win it 6 straight years. Unless you consider Halle a major event to justify Roger's falsified greatness. :lol:

Nathaniel_Near
12-19-2011, 11:33 AM
Pretty irrelevant. They would have the same no. of wins and Fed would one more final.

Plus, I don't remember Pete going 6 years undefeated on grass.

The rigidity of people continues to amaze me. People use numbers as a pure argument far too often with the worst example being people who religiously see a player as greater than another because they have more Majors, as if 7 is insurmountable by 6. So many other factors come into play, and so it is far from irrelevant -- quite amazing really, isn't it.

Lodger would have 1 more final but this doesn't render the opinion irrelevant, because tennis is far less black and white than this.

There are various arguments one can use in coming to an opinion; one might prefer Fed's straight 5 and others Pete's 7 overall titles in 8 years. Others might try to examine the eras, specifically geared toward competition on grass. Others might examine specific stats from the tournament that give an overall impression of dominance on the surface.

P.s. this opinion comes from a rabid *******:)

FEDERERNADAL13
12-19-2011, 11:34 AM
Federer won 5 straight Wimbledon before losing to Nadal in his 6th attempt, so no, he did not win it 6 straight years. Unless you consider Halle a major event to justify Roger's falsified greatness. :lol:

He just said undefeated "on grass", not "at Wimbledon" ;) )

Nathaniel_Near
12-19-2011, 11:35 AM
But why???????

Close call but I think Sampras showed slightly more dominant play at the tournament and had to deal with more genuinely excellent grass-courters, and also I prefer his 7 titles in 8 years to Fed's 6.

Eternity
12-19-2011, 11:38 AM
I don't know, I mean obviously it's not impossible but to me Fed's game has declined the most on grass.

Biscuitmcgriddleson
12-19-2011, 11:49 AM
Close call but I think Sampras showed slightly more dominant play at the tournament and had to deal with more genuinely excellent grass-courters, and also I prefer his 7 titles in 8 years to Fed's 6.

While I still think Sampras is narrowly ahead of Federer unless Federer goes ape scat at this next Wimbledon, Factoring in the other grass court players can't really be used since the grass now is entirely different. I do generally agree on your stance though.

aphex
12-19-2011, 11:55 AM
Close call but I think Sampras showed slightly more dominant play at the tournament and had to deal with more genuinely excellent grass-courters, and also I prefer his 7 titles in 8 years to Fed's 6.

Laughable. Sampras lost far more games and sets than Federer during each player's winning years.

Therefore, Federer has been more dominant.

Biscuitmcgriddleson
12-19-2011, 12:32 PM
Laughable. Sampras lost far more games and sets than Federer during each player's winning years.

Therefore, Federer has been more dominant.

But Aphex, that only means that he only face better players :)

Fredrik
12-19-2011, 12:46 PM
He did not lose a grass court match from June 2002 to June 2008.

That's 6 years dummy. Do you need some arithmetic lessons?

This is laughable.

Fed lost at Wimbledon in 2002. Wimbledon marks the end of the grass court season. Fed was back on grass in 2003 and kept winning for 5 years. Counting the months when there are no grass court matches, after coming off a loss, is ridiculous.

By your logic I am undefeated on grass. I swear; I´ve never lost a match on grass.

aphex
12-19-2011, 12:52 PM
This is laughable.

Fed lost at Wimbledon in 2002. Wimbledon marks the end of the grass court season. Fed was back on grass in 2003 and kept winning for 5 years. Counting the months when there are no grass court matches, after coming off a loss, is ridiculous.

By your logic I am undefeated on grass. I swear; I´ve never lost a match on grass.

Nope sorry, he didn't lose a grass court match for 6 years with a 65 (grass) match winning streak.
You can rest assured nobody cares about your stats though.

kishnabe
12-19-2011, 12:57 PM
Sampras had tougher grass opponents that were tuned into their Grass games. Great serve, exqusite volleys from Ivansevic, Rafter, Kracijek, and Becker. He had to face tough guys....and sometimes he was vulnerable in the first week. The surface didn't give his opponents chance and himself chances. He had to play his chances at the right time.....and on grass things could change quickly. The downside is he lost to baby Federer and some other swiss guy he shouldn't have lost too.

He never had a true grass court rival even though he got troubled by many players. He sucked outside of Wimbledon grass courts. Losing many times at Queens.

Federer on the other hand may have faced a stronger field(not stronger grass courters except for Nadal, Roddick and Hewitt), but outclassed many of his competitors on grass. Hewitt, Roddick, Nadal were the only guys who troubled him on grass. Grass was more in baseline play....so he had many chances and so did his opponents. So it was tough in this regard too even thought a great serve is still rewarded. He had a true grass court rival who is Nadal.

Federer may win more Wimbledons than Sampras and have a better grass court record. Plus he lost to Tsonga and Berdych who are good players and can play on grass real well.

I would give Federer the better W champion in history title, since he would eventually have more Wimbledon, had a grass rival, the surface is slower meaning more equal to everyone, more all court tennis than Sampras, and etc.

aphex
12-19-2011, 12:59 PM
What was Pete's longest undefeated grass streak?

DjokovicForTheWin
12-19-2011, 01:03 PM
Close call but I think Sampras showed slightly more dominant play at the tournament and had to deal with more genuinely excellent grass-courters, and also I prefer his 7 titles in 8 years to Fed's 6.

But this was my point you see, if you don't use rigid numbers, then you're just left with wavering opinions that change for every person. They won't hold any meaning to the general public. It's my opinion that Donald Young would beat Sampras in his prime, that would make me sound crazy of course, but what's to prevent me from saying it? Numbers! You need numbers always to back things up.

BrooklynNY
12-19-2011, 01:23 PM
Pretty irrelevant. They would have the same no. of wins and Fed would one more final.


This same logic is not applied when people say Pete > Fed at the USO.
People just mention 5 consecutive wins, which is amazing, but not better.

Sampras = 5 wins, 8 finals

Federer = 5 wins 6 finals.


Also, on faster surfaces, the probability of Bagels decreases drastically. Many sets are 6-4 7-5 6-3 type sets featuring 1 break.

Fed is great, he dominated Wimbledon for handful of years during his time, but that's it.

Mustard
12-19-2011, 01:47 PM
Laughable. Sampras lost far more games and sets than Federer during each player's winning years.

The information is below:

Pete Sampras
1993 Wimbledon
R128: Pete Sampras def. Neil Borwick (6-7, 6-3, 7-6, 6-3)
R64: Pete Sampras def. Jamie Morgan (6-4, 7-6, 6-4)
R32: Pete Sampras def. Byron Black (6-4, 6-1, 6-1)
R16: Pete Sampras def. Andrew Foster (6-1, 6-2, 7-6)
QF: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-2, 6-2, 3-6, 3-6, 6-4)
SF: Pete Sampras def. Boris Becker (7-6, 6-4, 6-4)
FR: Pete Sampras def. Jim Courier (7-6, 7-6, 3-6, 6-3)

Sets lost at 1993 Wimbledon: 4
Games lost at 1993 Wimbledon: 103

1994 Wimbledon
R128: Pete Sampras def. Jared Palmer (7-6, 7-5, 6-3)
R64: Pete Sampras def. Richey Reneberg (6-3, 6-4, 6-2)
R32: Pete Sampras def. Chuck Adams (6-1, 6-2, 6-4)
R16: Pete Sampras def. Daniel Vacek (6-4, 6-1, 7-6)
QF: Pete Sampras def. Michael Chang (6-4, 6-1, 6-3)
SF: Pete Sampras def. Todd Martin (6-4, 6-4, 3-6, 6-3)
FR: Pete Sampras def. Goran Ivanisevic (7-6, 7-6, 6-0)

Sets lost at 1994 Wimbledon: 1
Games lost at 1994 Wimbledon: 78

1995 Wimbledon
R128: Pete Sampras def. Karsten Braasch (7-6, 6-7, 6-4, 6-1)
R64: Pete Sampras def. Tim Henman (6-2, 6-3, 7-6)
R32: Pete Sampras def. Jared Palmer (4-6, 6-4, 6-1, 6-2)
R16: Pete Sampras def. Greg Rusedski (6-4, 6-3, 7-5)
QF: Pete Sampras def. Shuzo Matsuoka (6-7, 6-3, 6-4, 6-2)
SF: Pete Sampras def. Goran Ivanisevic (7-6, 4-6, 6-3, 4-6, 6-3)
FR: Pete Sampras def. Boris Becker (6-7, 6-2, 6-4, 6-2)

Sets lost at 1995 Wimbledon: 6
Games lost at 1995 Wimbledon: 109

1997 Wimbledon
R128: Pete Sampras def. Mikael Tillstrom (6-4, 6-4, 6-2)
R64: Pete Sampras def. Hendrik Dreekmann (7-6, 7-5, 7-5)
R32: Pete Sampras def. Byron Black (6-1, 6-2, 6-2)
R16: Pete Sampras def. Petr Korda (6-4, 6-3, 6-7, 6-7, 6-4)
QF: Pete Sampras def. Boris Becker (6-1, 6-7, 6-1, 6-4)
SF: Pete Sampras def. Todd Woodbridge (6-2, 6-1, 7-6)
FR: Pete Sampras def. Cedric Pioline (6-4, 6-2, 6-4)

Sets lost at 1997 Wimbledon: 3
Games lost at 1997 Wimbledon: 88

1998 Wimbledon
R128: Pete Sampras def. Dominik Hrbaty (6-3, 6-3, 6-2)
R64: Pete Sampras def. Mikael Tillstrom (6-4, 6-4, 7-6)
R32: Pete Sampras def. Thomas Enqvist (6-3, 7-6, 7-6)
R16: Pete Sampras def. Sebastien Grosjean (6-3, 6-4, 6-4)
QF: Pete Sampras def. Mark Philippoussis (7-6, 6-4, 6-4)
SF: Pete Sampras def. Tim Henman (6-3, 4-6, 7-5, 6-3)
FR: Pete Sampras def. Goran Ivanisevic (6-7, 7-6, 6-4, 3-6, 6-2)

Sets lost at 1998 Wimbledon: 3
Games lost at 1998 Wimbledon: 104

1999 Wimbledon
R128: Pete Sampras def. Scott Draper (6-3, 6-4, 6-4)
R64: Pete Sampras def. Sebastien Lareau (6-4, 6-2, 6-3)
R32: Pete Sampras def. Danny Sapsford (6-3, 6-4, 7-5)
R16: Pete Sampras def. Daniel Nestor (6-3, 6-4, 6-2)
QF: Pete Sampras def. Mark Philippoussis (4-6, 2-1 ret.)
SF: Pete Sampras def. Tim Henman (3-6, 6-4, 6-3, 6-4)
FR: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-3, 6-4, 7-5)

Sets lost at 1999 Wimbledon: 2
Games lost at 1999 Wimbledon: 77

2000 Wimbledon
R128: Pete Sampras def. Jiri Vanek (6-4, 6-4, 6-2)
R64: Pete Sampras def. Karol Kucera (7-6, 3-6, 6-3, 6-4)
R32: Pete Sampras def. Justin Gimelstob (2-6, 6-4, 6-2, 6-2)
R16: Pete Sampras def. Jonas Bjorkman (6-3, 6-2, 7-5)
QF: Pete Sampras def. Jan-Michael Gambill (6-4, 6-7, 6-4, 6-4)
SF: Pete Sampras def. Vladimir Voltchkov (7-6, 6-2, 6-4)
FR: Pete Sampras def. Patrick Rafter (6-7, 7-6, 6-4, 6-2)

Sets lost at 2000 Wimbledon: 4
Games lost at 2000 Wimbledon: 103

Total number of sets lost in Sampras' Wimbledon winning years: 23
Total number of games lost in Sampras' Wimbledon winning years: 662


Roger Federer
2003 Wimbledon
R128: Roger Federer def. Hyung-Taik Lee (6-3, 6-3, 7-6)
R64: Roger Federer def. Stefan Koubek (7-5, 6-1, 6-1)
R32: Roger Federer def. Mardy Fish (6-3, 6-1, 4-6, 6-1)
R16: Roger Federer def. Feliciano Lopez (7-6, 6-4, 6-4)
QF: Roger Federer def. Sjeng Schalken (6-3, 6-4, 6-4)
SF: Roger Federer def. Andy Roddick (7-6, 6-3, 6-3)
FR: Roger Federer def. Mark Philippoussis (7-6, 6-2, 7-6)

Total number of sets lost at 2003 Wimbledon: 1
Total number of games lost at 2003 Wimbledon: 81

2004 Wimbledon
R128: Roger Federer def. Alex Bogdanovic (6-3, 6-3, 6-0)
R64: Roger Federer def. Alejandro Falla (6-1, 6-2, 6-0)
R32: Roger Federer def. Thomas Johansson (6-3, 6-4, 6-3)
R16: Roger Federer def. Ivo Karlovic (6-3, 7-6, 7-6)
QF: Roger Federer def. Lleyton Hewitt (6-1, 6-7, 6-0, 6-4)
SF: Roger Federer def. Sebastien Grosjean (6-2, 6-3, 7-6)
FR: Roger Federer def. Andy Roddick (4-6, 7-5, 7-6, 6-4)

Total number of sets lost at 2004 Wimbledon: 2
Total number of games lost at 2004 Wimbledon: 78

2005 Wimbledon
R128: Roger Federer def. Paul-Henri Mathieu (6-4, 6-2, 6-4)
R64: Roger Federer def. Ivo Minar (6-4, 6-4, 6-1)
R32: Roger Federer def. Nicolas Kiefer (6-2, 6-7, 6-1, 7-5)
R16: Roger Federer def. Juan Carlos Ferrero (6-3, 6-4, 7-6)
QF: Roger Federer def. Fernando Gonzalez (7-5, 6-2, 7-6)
SF: Roger Federer def. Lleyton Hewitt (6-3, 6-4, 7-6)
FR: Roger Federer def. Andy Roddick (6-2, 7-6, 6-4)

Total number of sets lost at 2005 Wimbledon: 1
Total number of games lost at 2005 Wimbledon: 85

2006 Wimbledon
R128: Roger Federer def. Richard Gasquet (6-3, 6-2, 6-2)
R64: Roger Federer def. Tim Henman (6-4, 6-0, 6-2)
R32: Roger Federer def. Nicolas Mahut (6-3, 7-6, 6-4)
R16: Roger Federer def. Tomas Berdych (6-3, 6-3, 6-4)
QF: Roger Federer def. Mario Ancic (6-4, 6-4, 6-4)
SF: Roger Federer def. Jonas Bjorkman (6-2, 6-0, 6-2)
FR: Roger Federer def. Rafael Nadal (6-0, 7-6, 6-7, 6-3)

Total number of sets lost at 2006 Wimbledon: 1
Total number of games lost at 2006 Wimbledon: 68

2007 Wimbledon
R128: Roger Federer def. Teymuraz Gabashvili (6-3, 6-2, 6-4)
R64: Roger Federer def. Juan Martin del Potro (6-2, 7-5, 6-1)
R32: Roger Federer def. Marat Safin (6-1, 6-4, 7-6)
R16: Roger Federer def. Tommy Haas (Walkover)
QF: Roger Federer def. Juan Carlos Ferrero (7-6, 3-6, 6-1, 6-3)
SF: Roger Federer def. Richard Gasquet (7-5, 6-3, 6-4)
FR: Roger Federer def. Rafael Nadal (7-6, 4-6, 7-6, 2-6, 6-2)

Total number of sets lost at 2007 Wimbledon: 3
Total number of games lost at 2007 Wimbledon: 82

2009 Wimbledon
R128: Roger Federer def. Yen-Hsun Lu (7-5, 6-3, 6-2)
R64: Roger Federer def. Guillermo Garcia-Lopez (6-2, 6-2, 6-4)
R32: Roger Federer def. Philipp Kohlschreiber (6-3, 6-2, 6-7, 6-1)
R16: Roger Federer def. Robin Soderling (6-4, 7-6, 7-6)
QF: Roger Federer def. Ivo Karlovic (6-3, 7-5, 7-6)
SF: Roger Federer def. Tommy Haas (7-6, 7-5, 6-3)
FR: Roger Federer def. Andy Roddick (5-7, 7-6, 7-6, 3-6, 16-14)

Total number of sets lost at 2009 Wimbledon: 3
Total number of games lost at 2009 Wimbledon: 114

Total number of sets lost in Federer's Wimbledon winning years: 11
Total number of games lost in Federer's Wimbledon winning years: 508

CDestroyer
12-19-2011, 01:49 PM
Close call but I think Sampras showed slightly more dominant play at the tournament and had to deal with more genuinely excellent grass-courters, and also I prefer his 7 titles in 8 years to Fed's 6.

There were much better quality grass court players during Sampras's career that he had to get through.

Yes Sampras lost more sets but look at the competition between Sampras and Fed. Feds competition is laughable besides Nadal.

Sid_Vicious
12-19-2011, 01:56 PM
Trying to explain even simple logic to aphex, one of the dumbest living organs on planet Earth, is a futile effort.

"organs"? :confused:

Sid_Vicious
12-19-2011, 02:05 PM
There were much better quality grass court players during Sampras's career that he had to get through.

Yes Sampras lost more sets but look at the competition between Sampras and Fed. Feds competition is laughable besides Nadal.

If Federer's competition is laughable, then so is Pete's. Majority of Pete's 7 wimbledon titles were not as glory-filled as people remember. He whooped up on guys that he used to own badly like Ivanisevic (12-6), Pioline(9-0), and Courier(12-4 H2H).

Mustard
12-19-2011, 02:09 PM
What was Pete's longest undefeated grass streak?

23 matches, which he achieved on two seperate occasions:

1. From the start of 1994 Wimbledon until losing to Krajicek in the quarter finals of 1996 Wimbledon. There were the 7 wins at 1994 Wimbledon, 5 wins at 1995 Queen's Club, 7 wins at 1995 Wimbledon, and then 4 wins in getting to the 1996 Wimbledon quarter finals.

2. From the start of 1998 Wimbledon, until losing to Hewitt in the final of 2000 Queen's Club. There were the 7 wins at 1998 Wimbledon, 5 wins at 1999 Queen's Club, 7 wins at 1999 Wimbledon, and 4 wins in getting to the 2000 Queen's Club final.

Mustard
12-19-2011, 02:11 PM
If Federer's competition is laughable, then so is Pete's. Majority of Pete's 7 wimbledon titles were not as glory-filled as people remember. He whooped up on guys that he used to own badly like Ivanisevic (12-6), Pioline(9-0), and Courier(12-4 H2H).

Ivanisevic was always a threat to Sampras on grass, and he did beat Sampras in the semi finals of 1992 Wimbledon without facing a single break point.

Sid_Vicious
12-19-2011, 02:15 PM
Ivanisevic was always a threat to Sampras on grass, and he did beat Sampras in the semi finals of 1992 Wimbledon without facing a single break point.

That was in the transition period Pete went through after he won the USO IN 1990. It took him a while to win another major (1993 Wimbledon). Once Pete found his gear at Wimbledon, Goran became a hopeless case against him in all the big matches no matter how well he played. You can say the same thing about Roddick. He was a serious threat to Federer with the way he was playing in 2004 and 2009 but people consider Roddick to be a laughable and worthless opponent.

Mustard
12-19-2011, 02:19 PM
That was in the transition period Pete went through after he won the USO IN 1990. It took him a while to win another major (1993 Wimbledon). Once Pete found his gear at Wimbledon, Goran became a hopeless case against him in all the big matches no matter how well he played. You can say the same thing about Roddick. He was a serious threat to Federer with the way he was playing in 2004 and 2009 but people consider Roddick to be a laughable and worthless opponent.

In the 1992 Wimbledon quarter finals, Sampras beat defending champion, Stich, who Sampras usually had trouble with, in less than 90 minutes. As for Roddick, apart from 2009 I honestly think Hewitt was more of a threat to Federer. The 2004 Wimbledon match was much closer than the breadstick and bagel suggests.

Cup8489
12-19-2011, 02:19 PM
The information is below:

Pete Sampras
1993 Wimbledon
R128: Pete Sampras def. Neil Borwick (6-7, 6-3, 7-6, 6-3)
R64: Pete Sampras def. Jamie Morgan (6-4, 7-6, 6-4)
R32: Pete Sampras def. Byron Black (6-4, 6-1, 6-1)
R16: Pete Sampras def. Andrew Foster (6-1, 6-2, 7-6)
QF: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-2, 6-2, 3-6, 3-6, 6-4)
SF: Pete Sampras def. Boris Becker (7-6, 6-4, 6-4)
FR: Pete Sampras def. Jim Courier (7-6, 7-6, 3-6, 6-3)

Sets lost at 1993 Wimbledon: 4
Games lost at 1993 Wimbledon: 103

1994 Wimbledon
R128: Pete Sampras def. Jared Palmer (7-6, 7-5, 6-3)
R64: Pete Sampras def. Richey Reneberg (6-3, 6-4, 6-2)
R32: Pete Sampras def. Chuck Adams (6-1, 6-2, 6-4)
R16: Pete Sampras def. Daniel Vacek (6-4, 6-1, 7-6)
QF: Pete Sampras def. Michael Chang (6-4, 6-1, 6-3)
SF: Pete Sampras def. Todd Martin (6-4, 6-4, 3-6, 6-3)
FR: Pete Sampras def. Goran Ivanisevic (7-6, 7-6, 6-0)

Sets lost at 1994 Wimbledon: 1
Games lost at 1994 Wimbledon: 78

1995 Wimbledon
R128: Pete Sampras def. Karsten Braasch (7-6, 6-7, 6-4, 6-1)
R64: Pete Sampras def. Tim Henman (6-2, 6-3, 7-6)
R32: Pete Sampras def. Jared Palmer (4-6, 6-4, 6-1, 6-2)
R16: Pete Sampras def. Greg Rusedski (6-4, 6-3, 7-5)
QF: Pete Sampras def. Shuzo Matsuoka (6-7, 6-3, 6-4, 6-2)
SF: Pete Sampras def. Goran Ivanisevic (7-6, 4-6, 6-3, 4-6, 6-3)
FR: Pete Sampras def. Boris Becker (6-7, 6-2, 6-4, 6-2)

Sets lost at 1995 Wimbledon: 6
Games lost at 1995 Wimbledon: 109

1997 Wimbledon
R128: Pete Sampras def. Mikael Tillstrom (6-4, 6-4, 6-2)
R64: Pete Sampras def. Hendrik Dreekmann (7-6, 7-5, 7-5)
R32: Pete Sampras def. Byron Black (6-1, 6-2, 6-2)
R16: Pete Sampras def. Petr Korda (6-4, 6-3, 6-7, 6-7, 6-4)
QF: Pete Sampras def. Boris Becker (6-1, 6-7, 6-1, 6-4)
SF: Pete Sampras def. Todd Woodbridge (6-2, 6-1, 7-6)
FR: Pete Sampras def. Cedric Pioline (6-4, 6-2, 6-4)

Sets lost at 1997 Wimbledon: 3
Games lost at 1997 Wimbledon: 88

1998 Wimbledon
R128: Pete Sampras def. Dominik Hrbaty (6-3, 6-3, 6-2)
R64: Pete Sampras def. Mikael Tillstrom (6-4, 6-4, 7-6)
R32: Pete Sampras def. Thomas Enqvist (6-3, 7-6, 7-6)
R16: Pete Sampras def. Sebastien Grosjean (6-3, 6-4, 6-4)
QF: Pete Sampras def. Mark Philippoussis (7-6, 6-4, 6-4)
SF: Pete Sampras def. Tim Henman (6-3, 4-6, 7-5, 6-3)
FR: Pete Sampras def. Goran Ivanisevic (6-7, 7-6, 6-4, 3-6, 6-2)

Sets lost at 1998 Wimbledon: 3
Games lost at 1998 Wimbledon: 104

1999 Wimbledon
R128: Pete Sampras def. Scott Draper (6-3, 6-4, 6-4)
R64: Pete Sampras def. Sebastien Lareau (6-4, 6-2, 6-3)
R32: Pete Sampras def. Danny Sapsford (6-3, 6-4, 7-5)
R16: Pete Sampras def. Daniel Nestor (6-3, 6-4, 6-2)
QF: Pete Sampras def. Mark Philippoussis (4-6, 2-1 ret.)
SF: Pete Sampras def. Tim Henman (3-6, 6-4, 6-3, 6-4)
FR: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-3, 6-4, 7-5)

Sets lost at 1999 Wimbledon: 2
Games lost at 1999 Wimbledon: 77

2000 Wimbledon
R128: Pete Sampras def. Jiri Vanek (6-4, 6-4, 6-2)
R64: Pete Sampras def. Karol Kucera (7-6, 3-6, 6-3, 6-4)
R32: Pete Sampras def. Justin Gimelstob (2-6, 6-4, 6-2, 6-2)
R16: Pete Sampras def. Jonas Bjorkman (6-3, 6-2, 7-5)
QF: Pete Sampras def. Jan-Michael Gambill (6-4, 6-7, 6-4, 6-4)
SF: Pete Sampras def. Vladimir Voltchkov (7-6, 6-2, 6-4)
FR: Pete Sampras def. Patrick Rafter (6-7, 7-6, 6-4, 6-2)

Sets lost at 2000 Wimbledon: 4
Games lost at 2000 Wimbledon: 103

Total number of sets lost in Sampras' Wimbledon winning years: 23
Total number of games lost in Sampras' Wimbledon winning years: 662


Roger Federer
2003 Wimbledon
R128: Roger Federer def. Hyung-Taik Lee (6-3, 6-3, 7-6)
R64: Roger Federer def. Stefan Koubek (7-5, 6-1, 6-1)
R32: Roger Federer def. Mardy Fish (6-3, 6-1, 4-6, 6-1)
R16: Roger Federer def. Feliciano Lopez (7-6, 6-4, 6-4)
QF: Roger Federer def. Sjeng Schalken (6-3, 6-4, 6-4)
SF: Roger Federer def. Andy Roddick (7-6, 6-3, 6-3)
FR: Roger Federer def. Mark Philippoussis (7-6, 6-2, 7-6)

Total number of sets lost at 2003 Wimbledon: 1
Total number of games lost at 2003 Wimbledon: 81

2004 Wimbledon
R128: Roger Federer def. Alex Bogdanovic (6-3, 6-3, 6-0)
R64: Roger Federer def. Alejandro Falla (6-1, 6-2, 6-0)
R32: Roger Federer def. Thomas Johansson (6-3, 6-4, 6-3)
R16: Roger Federer def. Ivo Karlovic (6-3, 7-6, 7-6)
QF: Roger Federer def. Lleyton Hewitt (6-1, 6-7, 6-0, 6-4)
SF: Roger Federer def. Sebastien Grosjean (6-2, 6-3, 7-6)
FR: Roger Federer def. Andy Roddick (4-6, 7-5, 7-6, 6-4)

Total number of sets lost at 2004 Wimbledon: 2
Total number of games lost at 2004 Wimbledon: 78

2005 Wimbledon
R128: Roger Federer def. Paul-Henri Mathieu (6-4, 6-2, 6-4)
R64: Roger Federer def. Ivo Minar (6-4, 6-4, 6-1)
R32: Roger Federer def. Nicolas Kiefer (6-2, 6-7, 6-1, 7-5)
R16: Roger Federer def. Juan Carlos Ferrero (6-3, 6-4, 7-6)
QF: Roger Federer def. Fernando Gonzalez (7-5, 6-2, 7-6)
SF: Roger Federer def. Lleyton Hewitt (6-3, 6-4, 7-6)
FR: Roger Federer def. Andy Roddick (6-2, 7-6, 6-4)

Total number of sets lost at 2005 Wimbledon: 1
Total number of games lost at 2005 Wimbledon: 85

2006 Wimbledon
R128: Roger Federer def. Richard Gasquet (6-3, 6-2, 6-2)
R64: Roger Federer def. Tim Henman (6-4, 6-0, 6-2)
R32: Roger Federer def. Nicolas Mahut (6-3, 7-6, 6-4)
R16: Roger Federer def. Tomas Berdych (6-3, 6-3, 6-4)
QF: Roger Federer def. Mario Ancic (6-4, 6-4, 6-4)
SF: Roger Federer def. Jonas Bjorkman (6-2, 6-0, 6-2)
FR: Roger Federer def. Rafael Nadal (6-0, 7-6, 6-7, 6-3)

Total number of sets lost at 2006 Wimbledon: 1
Total number of games lost at 2006 Wimbledon: 68

2007 Wimbledon
R128: Roger Federer def. Teymuraz Gabashvili (6-3, 6-2, 6-4)
R64: Roger Federer def. Juan Martin del Potro (6-2, 7-5, 6-1)
R32: Roger Federer def. Marat Safin (6-1, 6-4, 7-6)
R16: Roger Federer def. Tommy Haas (Walkover)
QF: Roger Federer def. Juan Carlos Ferrero (7-6, 3-6, 6-1, 6-3)
SF: Roger Federer def. Richard Gasquet (7-5, 6-3, 6-4)
FR: Roger Federer def. Rafael Nadal (7-6, 4-6, 7-6, 2-6, 6-2)

Total number of sets lost at 2007 Wimbledon: 3
Total number of games lost at 2007 Wimbledon: 82

2009 Wimbledon
R128: Roger Federer def. Yen-Hsun Lu (7-5, 6-3, 6-2)
R64: Roger Federer def. Guillermo Garcia-Lopez (6-2, 6-2, 6-4)
R32: Roger Federer def. Philipp Kohlschreiber (6-3, 6-2, 6-7, 6-1)
R16: Roger Federer def. Robin Soderling (6-4, 7-6, 7-6)
QF: Roger Federer def. Ivo Karlovic (6-3, 7-5, 7-6)
SF: Roger Federer def. Tommy Haas (7-6, 7-5, 6-3)
FR: Roger Federer def. Andy Roddick (5-7, 7-6, 7-6, 3-6, 16-14)

Total number of sets lost at 2009 Wimbledon: 3
Total number of games lost at 2009 Wimbledon: 114

Total number of sets lost in Federer's Wimbledon winning years: 11
Total number of games lost in Federer's Wimbledon winning years: 508

Jesus, only lost 11 sets in 6 title runs? That's nuts!

Cup8489
12-19-2011, 02:21 PM
That was in the transition period Pete went through after he won the USO IN 1990. It took him a while to win another major (1993 Wimbledon). Once Pete found his gear at Wimbledon, Goran became a hopeless case against him in all the big matches no matter how well he played. You can say the same thing about Roddick. He was a serious threat to Federer with the way he was playing in 2004 and 2009 but people consider Roddick to be a laughable and worthless opponent.

No one who actually saw Roddick play in his best years should consider him worthless. Only idiot 12 year olds who parade around as Fed haters and Nad lovers think that way.. or should be allowed to think that way..

Sid_Vicious
12-19-2011, 02:21 PM
In the 1992 Wimbledon quarter finals, Sampras beat defending champion, Stich, who Sampras usually had trouble with, in less than 90 minutes.

Federer beat the defending champion in 2001 (Sampras), but he certainly was not ready to step up to the occasion and lost in the very next round, just like Pete.

Mustard
12-19-2011, 02:25 PM
Federer beat the defending champion in 2001 (Sampras), but he certainly was not ready to step up to the occasion and lost in the very next round, just like Pete.

Pete lost because Goran was better on the day, not giving Pete a single break point to look at. I think Pete's game was ready to win Wimbledon in 1992, but he lacked experience, whereas Goran was in excellent form and had experience of a Wimbledon semi final from 1990.

Fredrik
12-19-2011, 02:33 PM
Nope sorry, he didn't lose a grass court match for 6 years with a 65 (grass) match winning streak.
You can rest assured nobody cares about your stats though.

And when did the first match in this impressive 65 match winning streak take place?

tennis_pro
12-19-2011, 02:34 PM
There were much better quality grass court players during Sampras's career that he had to get through.

Yes Sampras lost more sets but look at the competition between Sampras and Fed. Feds competition is laughable besides Nadal.

And who exactly besides an old Becker was so tough for Sampras at Wimbledon? Ivanisevic? Henman? Or maybe Martin?

Don't make me laugh.

Mustard
12-19-2011, 02:40 PM
And when did the first match in this impressive 65 match winning streak take place?

His first match at 2003 Halle, when he beat Sargis Sargsian 7-5, 6-1.

Federer had 5 wins at 2003 Halle, 7 wins at 2003 Wimbledon, 5 wins at 2004 Halle, 7 wins at 2004 Wimbledon, 5 wins at 2005 Halle, 7 wins at 2005 Wimbledon, 5 wins at 2006 Halle, 7 wins at 2006 Wimbledon, 6 wins at 2007 Wimbledon (R16 match against Haas was a walkover), 5 wins at 2008 Halle and 6 wins at 2008 Wimbledon before losing the final to Nadal.

Fredrik
12-19-2011, 02:43 PM
His first match at 2003 Halle, when he beat Sargis Sargsian 7-5, 6-1.

Federer had 5 wins at 2003 Halle, 7 wins at 2003 Wimbledon, 5 wins at 2004 Halle, 7 wins at 2004 Wimbledon, 5 wins at 2005 Halle, 7 wins at 2005 Wimbledon, 5 wins at 2006 Halle, 7 wins at 2006 Wimbledon, 6 wins at 2007 Wimbledon (R16 match against Haas was a walkover), 5 wins at 2008 Halle and 6 wins at 2008 Wimbledon before losing the final to Nadal.

Thanks. You have an impressive collection of data. Please don´t tell me it´s memorized, that would be scary:wink:

Now; would you agree that this is a 5 year winning streak? (If you´re confused by my question, pls. check page 1 of this thread).

Cheers,
Fredrik

Mustard
12-19-2011, 02:45 PM
And who exactly besides an old Becker was so tough for Sampras at Wimbledon? Ivanisevic? Henman? Or maybe Martin?

Don't make me laugh.

Are you being serious? Goran was a threat to anyone on grass, and was consistently a title contender at Wimbledon, ironically winning the tournament when he was no longer considered a contender by the tennis mainstream. Henman was also a danger, although more flaky whereas Ivanisevic was volatile. As for Todd Martin, he beat Sampras in the final of 1994 Queen's Club, so yes, he was a serious threat in 1994 on grass.

Mustard
12-19-2011, 02:48 PM
Thanks. You have an impressive collection of data. Please don´t tell me it´s memorized, that would be scary:wink:

Now; would you agree that this is a 5 year winning streak? (If you´re confused by my question, pls. check page 1 of this thread).

Cheers,
Fredrik

It is a 5-year winning streak, yes, from June 2003 until July 2008. The 6 year thing is how long Federer went without losing a match on grass. Federer lost in the first round of 2002 Wimbledon to Ancic, and didn't play on grass again until the start of the 65 match grass-court winning streak at 2003 Halle.

Povl Carstensen
12-19-2011, 02:48 PM
Trumps Sampras easily.

tennis_pro
12-19-2011, 02:50 PM
Are you being serious? Goran was a threat to anyone on grass, and was consistently a title contender at Wimbledon, ironically winning the tournament when he was no longer considered a contender by the tennis mainstream. Henman was also a danger, although more flaky whereas Ivanisevic was volatile. As for Todd Martin, he beat Sampras in the final of 1994 Queen's Club, so yes, he was a serious threat in 1994 on grass.

Gimme a break, you really think Martin, Henman and Ivanisevic would be any threat to prime Federer on grass? Whatever.

Mustard
12-19-2011, 02:53 PM
Gimme a break, you really think Martin, Henman and Ivanisevic would be any threat to prime Federer on grass? Whatever.

We can only guess.

Sid_Vicious
12-19-2011, 02:53 PM
Trumps Sampras easily.

I don't know about easily. It is really hard to make a decision.

Pete has 7 wimbledon titles, 10 total grass titles, and a W-L record of 101-20 on grass.

Federer has 6 wimbledon titles, 1 runner up, 11 grass titles, and a W-L record of 102-15.

It is hard to say one trumps the other by a wide margin.

fed_rulz
12-19-2011, 02:53 PM
Are you being serious? Goran was a threat to anyone on grass, and was consistently a title contender at Wimbledon, ironically winning the tournament when he was no longer considered a contender by the tennis mainstream. Henman was also a danger, although more flaky whereas Ivanisevic was volatile. As for Todd Martin, he beat Sampras in the final of 1994 Queen's Club, so yes, he was a serious threat in 1994 on grass.

Mustard -- here's the problem with this argument. It is quite circular. Martin was a threat on grass because he beat Sampras. Ergo Martin is a great grass courter (do the same for other names, if you will)

Now:
Sampras' opposition on grass was filled with great grass courters. Do you not see a problem with this statement?

I see the same happening with respect to Sampras' serve and Agassi's return -- they both are used as "evidence" of greatness in a circular fashion.

fed_rulz
12-19-2011, 02:55 PM
I don't know about easily. It is really hard to make a decision.

Pete has 7 wimbledon titles, 10 total grass titles, and a W-L record of 101-20 on grass.

Federer has 6 wimbledon titles, 1 runner up, 11 grass titles, and a W-L record of 102-15.

It is hard to say one trumps the other by a wide margin.

The hypothetical victory for Federer would give a considerable lead over Sampras (in terms of grass titles, matches won, etc.)

Sid_Vicious
12-19-2011, 02:59 PM
The hypothetical victory for Federer would give a considerable lead over Sampras (in terms of grass titles, matches won, etc.)

Yup. No doubt about that at all. However, I don't think that will happen. Federer has been falling from grace year after year at Wimbledon. I bet next year he will get hit off the court by someone like Simon.

tennis_pro
12-19-2011, 03:03 PM
Well, Ivanisevic being a threat on grass for Sampras is like saying Mario Ancic was a threat for Federer. Or that Federer was in bigger danger of losing to Ancic at Wimbledon in 2006/2008 than ever to Hewitt or Roddick. Ain't that right, Mustard?

Mustard
12-19-2011, 03:07 PM
Yup. No doubt about that at all. However, I don't think that will happen. Federer has been falling from grace year after year at Wimbledon. I bet next year he will get hit off the court by someone like Simon.

Well, Federer has lost to guys like Tomas Berdych and Jo-Wilfried Tsonga at Wimbledon, but not to someone like George Bastl :)

tennis_pro
12-19-2011, 03:07 PM
I don't know about easily. It is really hard to make a decision.

Pete has 7 wimbledon titles, 10 total grass titles, and a W-L record of 101-20 on grass.

Federer has 6 wimbledon titles, 1 runner up, 11 grass titles, and a W-L record of 102-15.

It is hard to say one trumps the other by a wide margin.

If Federer won one more Wimbly title he'd have same amount of Wimbledons but more finals, more titles overall, better win %, longer winning streaks, bigger % of sets/games won..... and that leaves us, as always, with ***********s last-ditch attempt to rescue Pete = he had tougher opposition.

Luckily for Sampras Federer looks unlikely to win another Wimbledon.

Fredrik
12-19-2011, 03:07 PM
It is a 5-year winning streak, yes, from June 2003 until July 2008. The 6 year thing is how long Federer went without losing a match on grass. Federer lost in the first round of 2002 Wimbledon to Ancic, and didn't play on grass again until the start of the 65 match grass-court winning streak at 2003 Halle.

I get that part, yes, but he didn´t play on grass between 2002 Wimbledon and 2003 Halle, did he? My point is that (close to) 1 year without loosing a grass court match when none are played should not be counted as an achievement. It´s worth as much as my flawless grass court record.

Mustard
12-19-2011, 03:09 PM
Well, Ivanisevic being a threat on grass for Sampras is like saying Mario Ancic was a threat for Federer. Or that Federer was in bigger danger of losing to Ancic at Wimbledon in 2006/2008 than ever to Hewitt or Roddick. Ain't that right, Mustard?

Are you seriously comparing Ivanisevic and Ancic in terms of how big a threat they were at Wimbledon during their careers?

Mustard
12-19-2011, 03:12 PM
I get that part, yes, but he didn´t play on grass between 2002 Wimbledon and 2003 Halle, did he?

He didn't, no.

My point is that (close to) 1 year without loosing a grass court match when none are played should not be counted as an achievement. It´s worth as much as my flawless grass court record.

As I said, it was a 5 year winning streak, from June 2003 until July 2008.

Sid_Vicious
12-19-2011, 03:12 PM
Well, Federer has lost to guys like Tomas Berdych and Jo-Wilfried Tsonga at Wimbledon, but not to someone like George Bastl :)

lol! Well said. :)

http://www.parlonstennis.com/album/20090120/george_bastl.jpg

Russeljones
12-19-2011, 03:13 PM
I think it's safe to say Sampras was 1 loss removed from winning 8 straight. In light of that, I'd say it would take Federer two more Wimbledons to trump Sampras.

Mustard
12-19-2011, 03:13 PM
lol! Well said. :)

http://www.parlonstennis.com/album/20090120/george_bastl.jpg

Epic beard :twisted:

TMF
12-19-2011, 03:20 PM
If Federer won one more Wimbly title he'd have same amount of Wimbledons but more finals, more titles overall, better win %, longer winning streaks, bigger % of sets/games won..... and that leaves us, as always, with ***********s last-ditch attempt to rescue Pete = he had tougher opposition.

Luckily for Sampras Federer looks unlikely to win another Wimbledon.

Correct. If he wins another Wimbledon, he would be greater than Sampras b/c he has the edge on the tie breaker.

EDIT: And the old bs argument about h2h record wouldn't work either by Pete supporters since Fed is 1-0 against Pete.

tennis_pro
12-19-2011, 03:21 PM
Are you seriously comparing Ivanisevic and Ancic in terms of how big a threat they were at Wimbledon during their careers?

Well Ancic did manage to beat Federer at Wimbledon in 2002 and played him twice since then, in 2006 and 2008. Based on your logic he was a bigger threat to Federer than Roddick/Hewitt were even though they never beat Fed.

tennis_pro
12-19-2011, 03:22 PM
Correct. If he wins another Wimbledon, he would be greater than Sampras b/c he has the edge on the tie breaker.

If he did, the discussion of who's better on grass would not end, it would only begin with all the poor ***********s defending their hero.

Mustard
12-19-2011, 03:25 PM
Well Ancic did manage to beat Federer at Wimbledon in 2002 and played him twice since then, in 2006 and 2008.

It was a big surprise when Ancic beat Federer in the first round of 2002 Wimbledon in straight sets, considering the big differences in their rankings at the time. Federer was also still struggling with putting all the pieces together at that time, as 1 month earlier showed when he had lost in straight sets to Arazi in the first round of the French Open, having also been a quarter finalist there the previous year, just like at Wimbledon.

Based on your logic he was a bigger threat to Federer than Roddick/Hewitt were even though they never beat Fed.

You do realise that in 1992, Ivanisevic was a top 10 player and had been in the Wimbledon semi finals before, whereas Ancic was ranked well outside the top 100 and making his very first appearance in the main draw of a major when he beat Federer at 2002 Wimbledon?

tennis_pro
12-19-2011, 03:27 PM
You do realise that in 1992, Ivanisevic was a top 10 player and had been in the Wimbledon semi finals before, whereas Ancic was ranked well outside the top 100 when he beat Federer at 2002 Wimbledon?

But no problemo, Ancic was the top 10 seed in Wimbly 2006 proving his low ranking in 2002 was due to his very young age.

So Ancic was in the top 10 in 2006 when he played Fed at Wimbledon, beat him in 2002, what more do you need? He was a bigger threat than Roddick and Hewitt because they never beat him there. Ain't that right?:D

Cup8489
12-19-2011, 03:28 PM
Thanks. You have an impressive collection of data. Please don´t tell me it´s memorized, that would be scary:wink:

Now; would you agree that this is a 5 year winning streak? (If you´re confused by my question, pls. check page 1 of this thread).

Cheers,
Fredrik

Well, he won Halle 6 years in a row. 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008. so considering he started with halle in that streak and ended at wimbledon.. carrying him through slightly more than 6 years of winning on grass.

so, it's a 6 year winning streak..if you look at it from start to the last halle event he won, plus falling something like 5 points shy of a 6th wimbledon.

tennis_pro
12-19-2011, 03:31 PM
Well, he won Halle 6 years in a row. 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008. so considering he started with halle in that streak and ended at wimbledon.. carrying him through slightly more than 6 years of winning on grass.

so, it's a 6 year winning streak..if you look at it from start to the last halle event he won, plus falling something like 5 points shy of a 6th wimbledon.

he didn't play Halle in 2007

but still, Federer lost only 1 match (in an all-time epic) on grass in 2003-2009, 1 freaking loss ending 9-7 in the 5th (and Fed had chances to win as well) in 7 seasons, to say that's huge is an even bigger understatement

Cup8489
12-19-2011, 03:32 PM
he didn't play Halle in 2007

but still, Federer lost only 1 match (in an all-time epic) on grass in 2003-2009, 1 freaking loss ending 9-7 in the 5th (and Fed had chances to win as well) in 7 seasons, to say that's huge is an even bigger understatement

ok my mistake. but he didnt lose wimbledon.. so the streak is still 6 years :)

Mustard
12-19-2011, 03:35 PM
But no problemo, Ancic was the top 10 seed in Wimbly 2006 proving his low ranking in 2002 was due to his very young age.

Federer was not THE Federer at 2002 Wimbledon. He was struggling to be consistent and play his best tennis when it mattered most. His loss to Ancic was a shocker, one of many at that Wimbledon.

So Ancic was in the top 10 in 2006 when he played Fed at Wimbledon, beat him in 2002, what more do you need? He was a bigger threat than Roddick and Hewitt because they never beat him there. Ain't that right?:D

This is silly. Ancic beating Federer at 2002 Wimbledon is not the same as Ivanisevic's win over Sampras at 1992 Wimbledon, where they were both top 10 players. Ancic has nowhere near the calibre of Ivanisevic, who was consistently in the top 10 for years and reaching the quarter finals or better at Wimbledon a total of 7 times in his career, which include winning the title once and being runner-up on 3 occasions.

tennis_pro
12-19-2011, 03:40 PM
This is silly. Ancic beating Federer at 2002 Wimbledon is not the same as Ivanisevic's win over Sampras at 1992 Wimbledon, where they were both top 10 players. Ancic has nowhere near the calibre of Ivanisevic, who was consistently in the top 10 for years and reaching the quarter finals or better at Wimbledon a total of 7 times in his career, which include winning the title once and being runner-up on 3 occasions.

But this is your logic. You point out Ivanisevic to be such a big threat to Sampras at Wimbledon but he played him 3 times in Sampras' prime and lost all 3 times. 1992 doesn't count singe Sampras wasn't THE Sampras we know, still looking for his best form.

Mustard
12-19-2011, 03:51 PM
But this is your logic. You point out Ivanisevic to be such a big threat to Sampras at Wimbledon but he played him 3 times in Sampras' prime and lost all 3 times. 1992 doesn't count singe Sampras wasn't THE Sampras we know, still looking for his best form.

Ridiculous. Sampras in 1992 had the game, but not the experience in a Wimbledon semi final that Ivanisevic had. As I said before, Sampras beat defending champion, Stich, in less than 90 minutes in their 1992 Wimbledon quarter final, when Sampras was the underdog. Sampras' semi final match at 1992 Wimbledon saw Ivanisevic win 6-7, 7-6, 6-4, 6-2, where Ivanisevic didn't give Sampras a single break point to look at. Their 1994 Wimbledon final was serving domination for 2 sets, where Sampras won both tiebreaks and Goran's head went in the third set. Their 1995 Wimbledon semi final was extremely close, with Goran seemingly the better player for long periods of it, but Sampras won enough crucial points to win. Their 1998 Wimbledon final saw Goran have set points for a 2 set lead, flunking second serve returns with his backhand before Sampras eventually won a 5-setter when Goran ran out of gas late in the match.

Goran was a big threat to Sampras at Wimbledon.

TMF
12-19-2011, 04:01 PM
This whole thing about who's more of a threat on grass is silly. You can argue Fed was better which his peers gave him less fit, and it doesn't mean they are weaker than Sampras's peers. It's not Fed's fault if Sampras wasn't good enough to win decisively as Fed did during their prime.

Mustard
12-19-2011, 04:03 PM
This whole thing about who's more of a threat on grass is silly. You can argue Fed was better which his peers gave him less fit, and it doesn't mean they are weaker than Sampras's peers. It's not Fed's fault if Sampras wasn't good enough to win decisively as Fed did during their prime.

I'm just saying that the notion that Ancic was to Federer at Wimbledon what Ivanisevic was to Sampras at Wimbledon, is utterly ridiculous.

Russeljones
12-19-2011, 04:09 PM
I'm just saying that the notion that Ancic was to Federer at Wimbledon what Ivanisevic was to Sampras at Wimbledon, is utterly ridiculous.

:) I think you should have just ignored it, it's plain stupid and doesn't deserve to be discussed. Ancic was nobody while Ivanisevic was the last guy you wanted to play on grass.

Nathaniel_Near
12-19-2011, 04:13 PM
But this was my point you see, if you don't use rigid numbers, then you're just left with wavering opinions that change for every person. They won't hold any meaning to the general public. It's my opinion that Donald Young would beat Sampras in his prime, that would make me sound crazy of course, but what's to prevent me from saying it? Numbers! You need numbers always to back things up.

No, numbers shouldn't be used in such a black and white fashion. They ARE a good basis, a good indicator but if Roger gets a 7th Wimbledon and has that one additional final over Pete it shouldn't be set in stone that he is the greater Wimbledon champion merely because for example he managed a further final. Judging other factors and why they might be the way they are is what makes us human and not robots.

kiki
12-19-2011, 04:19 PM
One more win an he equals Sampras and Renshaw.Isn´t it?

kiki
12-19-2011, 04:21 PM
Laver won 4 in a row.And he didn´t play it in his best years....WOOOW¡¡¡

Nathaniel_Near
12-19-2011, 04:23 PM
Laver won 4 in a row.And he didn´t play it in his best years....WOOOW¡¡¡

O.M.G.Z !!!!11111111111

Biscuitmcgriddleson
12-19-2011, 04:27 PM
I'm just saying that the notion that Ancic was to Federer at Wimbledon what Ivanisevic was to Sampras at Wimbledon, is utterly ridiculous.

QUOTED FOR THE TRUTH!

jackson vile
12-19-2011, 04:29 PM
How could he be the greatest Wim. champ when he never won on real Wim. grass?:confused:

Biscuitmcgriddleson
12-19-2011, 04:30 PM
Laver won 4 in a row.And he didn´t play it in his best years....WOOOW¡¡¡

WOOOOOOOOO way to come up with a post that doesn't matter at all. But Laver has 9 grass majors. He is the GOATEST GOAT!

kiki
12-19-2011, 04:31 PM
How could he be the greatest Wim. champ when he never won on real Wim. grass?:confused:

i AGREE, IT IS NOT GRASS NOWADAYS.BUT, AGAIN, IT IS NOT HIS FAULT.HE DOES WHAT HE HAS TO DO.DON´T BLAME IT ON HIM

forthegame
12-19-2011, 04:36 PM
Much as I would love it, I don't think he can win another W.

Talker
12-19-2011, 04:36 PM
WOOOOOOOOO way to come up with a post that doesn't matter at all. But Laver has 9 grass majors. He is the GOATEST GOAT!

Is Laver considered the best grasscourt player ever?

jackson vile
12-19-2011, 04:37 PM
WOOOOOOOOO way to come up with a post that doesn't matter at all. But Laver has 9 grass majors. He is the GOATEST GOAT!

No, they always come up with some kind of excuse as to why it does not count.

Mustard
12-19-2011, 04:37 PM
The differences in the grass is exaggerated. Yes, it's changed, but some people exaggerate its significance out of all proportion. Other factors are also involved when it comes to the style of play today compared to the past.

kiki
12-19-2011, 04:38 PM
Is Laver considered the best grasscourt player ever?

probably he is.But close

jackson vile
12-19-2011, 04:39 PM
The differences in the grass is exaggerated. Yes, it's changed, but some people exaggerate its significance out of all proportion. Other factors are also involved when it comes to the style of play today compared to the past.

Then you can also add the balls have changed considerably as well, those combined you have a completely different tournament.

Just like they are changing the FO to such a large degree, but that came much later to give Roger a chance to win.

Talker
12-19-2011, 04:43 PM
probably he is.But close

With all those titles on grass he had there's no one close today.

Mustard
12-19-2011, 04:44 PM
Then you can also add the balls have changed considerably as well, those combined you have a completely different tournament.

Just like they are changing the FO to such a large degree, but that came much later to give Roger a chance to win.

There's also the equipment, enabling players to hit harder and deeper with accuracy, which also enables better service returns. As a result, there's longer, more powerful rallies and very little serve and volley. Also, there's the fact that since 2001 Wimbledon, there have been 32 seeds in the majors instead of 16 seeds, which changes the dynamics.

kiki
12-19-2011, 04:45 PM
With all those titles on grass he had there's no one close today.

Not certainly in classic grass, he owns it.

Russeljones
12-19-2011, 04:50 PM
With all those titles on grass he had there's no one close today.

Especially playing tournaments where hardly anyone worth talking about showed up. He really owned a lot of part-time tennis players.

kiki
12-19-2011, 04:55 PM
If current " grass" extends to farms, there will be no cows alive in 2 years.They will die from clay ingestion...

Sentinel
12-19-2011, 09:48 PM
I'm sure we all hope he makes it!
Not me.

I can;t wait for Nadal to recover his mental strength. He plays an exo on Dec 29th or so, so we'll get a good idea there whether he will win the CYGS or not.

Sentinel
12-19-2011, 09:50 PM
Then you can also add the balls have changed considerably as well, those combined you have a completely different tournament.

Just like they are changing the FO to such a large degree, but that came much later to give Roger a chance to win.
Or Nadal a chance to lose (early).:)

Povl Carstensen
12-19-2011, 09:54 PM
I don't know about easily. It is really hard to make a decision.

Pete has 7 wimbledon titles, 10 total grass titles, and a W-L record of 101-20 on grass.

Federer has 6 wimbledon titles, 1 runner up, 11 grass titles, and a W-L record of 102-15.

It is hard to say one trumps the other by a wide margin.True, I was actually just considering the grass winning streak.

gregor.b
12-19-2011, 10:23 PM
Is Laver considered the best grasscourt player ever?

I think in general,with a couple of exceptions among the younger posters who really know very little about tennis and the history of the game, Laver is probably considered THE greatest, (in the Men's game)period.

joeri888
12-19-2011, 10:57 PM
i can agree with Nataniel's argument. For me, Fed's dominance in 2005-2006 makes him the best ever, because of the style and class and destruction he did it with. If Djokovic wins 15 HC slams, I'd probably still consider Fed greater on HC, unless Djokovic ups his level two more notches. Smetimes you just feel that a player was perfect on a surface. Fed was that on HC, Sampras on graass

TMF
12-19-2011, 11:08 PM
I think in general,with a couple of exceptions among the younger posters who really know very little about tennis and the history of the game, Laver is probably considered THE greatest, (in the Men's game)period.

Five greatest grass-court men’s tennis players: A fan’s take (http://sports.yahoo.com/tennis/news?slug=ycn-8626803)

1. Roger Federer
2. Pete Sampras
3. Bjorn Borg
4. William Reshaw
5. Rod Laver



Honorable Mention:

Lawrence and Reggie Doherty
Boris Becker
John McEnroe
Rafael Nadal

merlinpinpin
12-19-2011, 11:48 PM
Ridiculous. Sampras in 1992 had the game, but not the experience in a Wimbledon semi final that Ivanisevic had. As I said before, Sampras beat defending champion, Stich, in less than 90 minutes in their 1992 Wimbledon quarter final, when Sampras was the underdog. Sampras' semi final match at 1992 Wimbledon saw Ivanisevic win 6-7, 7-6, 6-4, 6-2, where Ivanisevic didn't give Sampras a single break point to look at. Their 1994 Wimbledon final was serving domination for 2 sets, where Sampras won both tiebreaks and Goran's head went in the third set. Their 1995 Wimbledon semi final was extremely close, with Goran seemingly the better player for long periods of it, but Sampras won enough crucial points to win. Their 1998 Wimbledon final saw Goran have set points for a 2 set lead, flunking second serve returns with his backhand before Sampras eventually won a 5-setter when Goran ran out of gas late in the match.

Goran was a big threat to Sampras at Wimbledon.

The thing with Goran at Wimbledon was that he was a very serious threat en route to the final, then an epic choker on the championship match. He was never more dangerous than when Pete had to play him in the semis. In the final, you could depend on him to fold when the going got tough, so it was really no contest.

piece
12-20-2011, 01:34 AM
Close call but I think Sampras showed slightly more dominant play at the tournament and had to deal with more genuinely excellent grass-courters, and also I prefer his 7 titles in 8 years to Fed's 6.

I don't think the evidence bears that out. In their successful title runs Federer has a better percentage of sets won than Sampras.

Nathaniel_Near
12-20-2011, 02:05 AM
I don't think the evidence bears that out. In their successful title runs Federer has a better percentage of sets won than Sampras.

I mean the manner in which he played was more powerful, aggressive, overbearing. Given the nature of the courts back then you were probably more likely to be pushed close in sets and lose more because the overall conditions were more fast and helped the serve, but especially for those who didn't have a serve as great as say Pete or Goron, as their serves were already close to being as hard as a serve can be to break, where as others serves would be significantly helped by the surface, making them more viable contenders as they would be able to hang in and hide behind their serves more than today, revealing less of the gaps in the rest of their baseline play. Also I would say there were more grass-court bullets to dodge, players who were really quite supreme challenges on the surface and this is an important aspect.

This assertion is intuitive and speculative, I don't even begin to claim I have real numbers that would back this up, it's just a theory that to me currently sounds logical given the differing conditions of the two grass eras.

There are a bunch of stats though which I was trying to find on menstenforum which offers a different view on the dominance of Sampras and Federer and their unbelievable play which would give more credence to what I'm saying and is a worthy alternative angle to look at and scrutinize when trying to answer these sorts of questions, but I can't find it. ???:

*sad face*

Slayer
12-20-2011, 02:06 AM
This whole thing about who's more of a threat on grass is silly. You can argue Fed was better which his peers gave him less fit, and it doesn't mean they are weaker than Sampras's peers. It's not Fed's fault if Sampras wasn't good enough to win decisively as Fed did during their prime.

This. It could have been just as likely that Federer was playing alongside other grand slam winners such as Baghdatis, Gonzalez, Philippoussis... IF they had won their final matches.

If that was the case, there'd be so many TT posters making a claim for this era being so hard, with all the players mentioned above being "grand slam champions".

Just because Federer did not choke / get outplayed / let the occassion get to him (whatever you want to call it), does not make this a weak era.

Reading some of the posts that come up over and over again really makes me wonder sometimes, what would have happened if, for example, Federer was on 13 Grand Slams and Baghdatis, Gonzalez and Philippoussis all had a GS up their belt. Such a hard era all of a sudden with so many quality players?

// Sorry for the rant. I had to let it out somewhere, this just happened to be the post :)

Nathaniel_Near
12-20-2011, 02:08 AM
Five greatest grass-court men’s tennis players: A fan’s take (http://sports.yahoo.com/tennis/news?slug=ycn-8626803)

1. Roger Federer
2. Pete Sampras
3. Bjorn Borg
4. William Reshaw
5. Rod Laver



Honorable Mention:

Lawrence and Reggie Doherty
Boris Becker
John McEnroe
Rafael Nadal

It can be kind of argued that Laver won 6 Wimbledon titles in a row and 8 overall. It's unfortunate how ambiguous and confusing tennis achievements are to judge in some of the years prior to the Open Era, never mind the actual Open Era itself.

I can't really see too well though how Laver could be placed behind Borg in this list.

Nathaniel_Near
12-20-2011, 02:14 AM
Ok, I found what I was looking for. Feast your eyes upon this research which was done meticulously and brilliantly by a poster on another site called NYCtennisfan. i.e. NOT MY WORK.

It would be fair to say that the data actually tends to further Federer's argument.

I've wanted to compare the statistics from a Wimbledon tournament from the early-mid '90s with the statistics from a recent Wimbledon but never really had the time. I availed myself of the free time I have on board airplanes and at the airport (I travel very regularly for business) and of course the hi-speed WiFi. The results are very interesting.

http://i1091.photobucket.com/albums/i400/jawkha1/wimb1994vswim2011stats.jpg

First: a little explanation about the chart if you are not familiar with statistical testing. I wanted to go more in-depth with the stats than just "total amount of service points won" because that statistic gives you only limited information. The most important piece of information when comparing how quickly these two tournaments played is "% of points won on 1st serve." So, I plotted every serve (and ipso facto, return) stat for every match in both the 1994 and 2011 Wimbledons. Unless there is a walkover, each tournament contains 127 total matches and statistics for 127 X 2 = 254 different player performances.

The "Statistically Significant Difference" column lets you know if there is a real statistical difference between the means of various categories between these two tournaments. The results for a particular statistic, say "% of First serve points won," from the 127 matches from Wimbledon 1994 were in one column and the same numbers for the same statistic from Wimbledon 2011 were in another column. A T-Test for two samples was run. The alpha (or P value) used was .05. This means that the test determines whether or not there is something that is causing the differences in means between the two sets of numbers with a 1-.05=.95=95% certainty. So, let's say the "% chance of randomness" column reads that there's a 2.5% chance of randomness between the mean 1994 "% of first serve points won" category and the 2011 "% of first serve points won" category. This means that there's a 2.5% chance that something absolutely random is causing these numbers to be different, and that there is a 97.5% chance that there is some factor or reason that is causing these means to be significantly different. If we use .05 as an alpha, it means we reject our null hypothesis (which is "There is no significant difference between the numbers") if our T critical value (after running the test) is less than .05 and we accept the null hypothesis if the t-critical value is greater than .05. The T-critical value turned out to be .025 which is less than .05 so we reject the null hypothesis that there is no difference. As you can see from the chart, most of the chances for randomness are extremely small. This means that there is SOMETHING or SOME FACTOR that is causing these means to be different. 6.4E-15 means that there is a .0000000000000064% chance that the difference in % of second serve points won was something completely random.

It was significantly easier to win points off of the first serve in 1994. It was significantly easier to hit aces and win second serve points in 2011. Breaks per set and breaks per game and break chances per game were significantly higher in 1994 compared with 2011. Players in 2011 had a significantly higher overall 1st serve % compared with players in 1994.

Some observations:

--Once the first serve ball was in play, it was statistically significantly easier to win the point in 1994 compared with 2011. Was this because of the lighter balls and "quicker" and lower bouncing courts? Was it because players followed their first serves to net and then closed the point at net? In serve and volley tennis, the first serve dictates the result of the point more than in baseline play (although any style of play is dictated by the first serve, and especially so if it is a really good first serve) since a returner cannot "reset" the point with a return that lands near the baseline (even if it is 'looped' back) thereby negating the overall effect of the 1st serve. In serve and volley tennis, a good serve sets up a player to win the point in the next two or three points as a direct result of the serve and its effect. It was harder to return serves due to inferior racket and string technology. A good serve in 1994 was more difficult to return low at the volleyer's feet and it was difficult to 'stretch' the volleyer with a return. In addition, after the first volley (which could end the point after a particularly effective serve), the return had a more difficult time putting the ball back in play because of the low bounce and the inferior rackets and strings that did not allow a player to pass the volleyer by picking a ball up 8 inches from the ground and putting a lot of pace and good direction on the ball.

--What's amazing about the fact that it was much easier to win a point after connecting on a first serve in 1994 compared with 2011 is that there it was significantly easier to hit aces in 2011 compared with 1994. In 1994, there were 1300 more first serve balls in play but 200 fewer aces hit. You would think the opposite were true. If it's easier to hit aces in 2011, wouldn't it be easier to win a great % of points off of the first serve? Amazingly -- NO. Could it be that players are statistically significantly taller and stronger now? The rackets? It doesn't seem to be the surface because then the % of points won off of the first serve would be higher for 2011 as well but it isn't. In fact, 1994 had a significantly higher number of instances where a player won 90% of the points off of their first serves (15 compared to 4 in 2011), and a higher number of players win win 80% of their first serve points even when losing (19 to 7). In 1994, a player won less than 70% of their first serve points a total of 67 times out of a possible 254 times and only 6 times by the winner. In 2011, a player won less than 70% of their first serve points 81 out of 254 times and 10 times by the winner.

--The % second serve points won in 2011 was much, much higher than in 1994. Players aren't serving and volleying and thus the returner isn't winning points right off of the return or the next shot. At some point, players decided that it was suicide to come in on their second serves. Was racket and string technology making it easier to return serve? Was the grass playing differently? If the surface was "faster" and lower bouncing, perhaps the return had more value, especially if you got it at the feet of the volleyer. There are no available statistics for tournaments played before 1991, but from eyeballing the stats of 1991, 1992, 1993, and the rest of the "serve and volley years," 44%-46% seemed the norm for points won on the second serve. Perhaps the available technology and the bounce convinced the players that they HAD to come in off of their second serves, but staying back might not have produced results worse than only 43.8% of second serve points won, which was the mean for all players in 1994. Baseliners like Agassi and Courier did well on second serves. Agassi won 51.7% of his second serve points in 1992 and 52.5% of the 2nd serve points in 1999. Courier won 51.4% of second serve points in 1993. Both players' %s were very much above the mean, but perhaps they had skills that few others had. Sampras did very well on the second serve winning 50%, 55%, 53%, 56%, 54%, 50%, 57% of second serve points in his title years, all above the means for those respective tournaments. It would have been interesting to see Lendl in 1990 stay back more because Agassi did it in 1992 and Courier in 1993, only 2 and 3 years later and they were very successful on second serves. Then again, weather and rain and how the court was playing may have made it difficult for Lendl to do so, but 1992 was a wet and rainy Wimbledon.

--The one stat that I didn't enter was the double fault, and I wish that I had. There was a statistically significant amount more double faults in 1994 than in 2011. Players needed more on the second serve to volley, maybe they felt there was a great risk-reward ration (see observation about winning points easier off of the first serve in 1994), and so on. If the double faults in 1994 were dropped down to the 2011 levels, the % of points won on the 2nd serve for 1994 would dramatically rise. There were 60 instances of players winning 50% or more of their second serve points in 1994. There were 134 such instances in 2011, more than half of all possible instances.

A lot of these observations can be read in table form:

http://i1091.photobucket.com/albums/i400/jawkha1/valueof1stserve.jpg

... to be continued...

Nathaniel_Near
12-20-2011, 02:18 AM
--The biggest factor in determining the breaks per set, breaks per game, and break chances per game was the significantly LOWER first serve % in 1994. Had the first serve %s been the same, the breaks per set, breaks per game, and breaks chances per game numbers from 1994 would have been almost identical to 2011's numbers or maybe even less. Is it easier to hit a first serve now due to racket technology and string technology? McEnroe often mentions that it used to be considered a good day to hit 55% of your first serves in when he was playing but now that's not good at all. If you plot the median/mean first serve %s from 1984, 1990, 1995, 2000, and today, the average first serve % is probably statistically significantly higher today than in any of those years except for maybe 2000. Then again, as mentioned previously, maybe players went for more on the first serves knowing there was a greater chance of reward. The statistics show that once the first ball was in play, it was easier to win the point in 1994. Then again, this could be the result of the aforementioned effect of a player closing the net after a first serve an thereby taking direct advantage of the first serve's effect.

There is a large difference between the % of first serve points won and % of second serve points won for 1994 Wimbledon. The gap is smaller for 2011 Wimbledon. The gap is even smaller, as one would expect, at clay tournaments. The value and expected reward of the first serve was higher at Wimbledon 1994. Here is final chart that shows some the differences between % of points won off of first and second serves.

http://i1091.photobucket.com/albums/i400/jawkha1/penaltyformissingfirstserve.jpg

EDITED TO ADD A LOOK AT THE HEIGHTS OF THE PLAYERS:

To add another wrinkle into the conversation, the mean heights of the players entered in Wimbledon 1994 and Wimbledon 2011 are almost identical. It could be supposed that the mean height in 1994 was somewhat skewed by the fact that grass specialists (who tended to be taller players) were in the draw in place of players who skipped the tournament although most of the top 100 was in the field.

http://i1091.photobucket.com/albums/i400/jawkha1/wimbledonheights.jpg


Here is an image of all the data used for Wimbledon 1994. The colored rows denote that a round has been completed.

http://i1091.photobucket.com/albums/i400/jawkha1/wimbledon1994.jpg

Here is Wimbledon 2011.

http://i1091.photobucket.com/albums/i400/jawkha1/wimbledon2011.jpg

Nathaniel_Near
12-20-2011, 02:22 AM
Some serve stats of the past 18 Wimbledon champions. The break chances stat can be a bit misleading because someone can get down 15-40, save the break points, only to get broken after the opponent takes the AD, hence having more break points against because you were saving them in the first place. Then again, why in the hell are you getting down 0-40 Pete or Goran? . In any case, here are the stats. Nobody dominated the 1st serve points won like Sampras. Federer has done extremely well on his second serve. Only Stich, Hewitt and Agassi in the past 15 years have been broken in the double digits.

PLAYER.....YEAR....# of GAMES SERVED...BP WON AGAINST....1st serve pts won...2nd serve points won....1st serve %...tot. % GAMES HELD...tot. % of service points won

Michael Stich....1991...132...11/45...80.3%...58.6%...56.2%...91.7%....70.8%
Andre Agassi.....1992...132...17/50...73.1%....51.7%..61.2%...87.7%....64.8%
Pete Sampras....1993...123...5/22.....85.9%....49.8%..66.9%..95.9%....73.9%
Pete Sampras....1994...106...2/22....89.8%.....55.3%..64.3%...98.1%...77.5%
Pete Sampras....1995...132...8/35.....87.3%.....53%....61.1%...93.9%...73.9%
Richard Krajicek..1996...110...6/30.....88.3%....52.7%..64.5%...91.8%...75.7%
Pete Sampras.....1997...118...2/19.....89.4%.....56%...70.4%...98.3%...79.5%
Pete Sampras.....1998...121...6/32.....89.1%....53.8%..57.7%...95%.....74.2%
Pete Sampras.....1999...101...5/18.....89.7%....50.2%..63.8%...95%.....75.4%
Pete Sampras.....2000...123...5/29.....82.7%....57.3%...65.1%...95.9%..73.8%
Goran Ivanisevic..2001...147...9/27.....85.7%....54.3%...60%.....93.9%...73.1%
Lleyton Hewitt....2002....107....11/41...78.2%....59.6%...54%....89.7%...69.6%
Roger Federer.....2003...105....8/30.....77.9%....59.3%...61.4%..92.4%...70.4%
Roger Federer.....2004...108....6/33.....77.1%....62.1%...67.2....94.4%....72.2%
Roger Federer.....2005....111....7/16.....80%......63%....64.8%...93.7%...74.0%
Roger Federer.....2006....100....4/12.....79.5%.....64%....66.5%...96%....74.3%
Roger Federer.....2007....102....7/24.....78.0%.....61%....65.1%...93%....72.1%
Rafael Nadal.......2008....123....5/23.....77.7%.....62%....72.4%...96%....73.4%
Roger Federer.....2009....135....5/19.....87.5%.....61%....66.9%...96.3%..78.7%
Rafael Nadal.......2010....124....7/23.....79.0%.....61.9%....68.1%...94.4%..73.6%
Novak Djokovic....2011....107....11/28...77.4%.....59%......68.5%...89.7%...71.6%

Ranked by Total % of serve points won

Pete Sampras......1997.........79.51%
Roger Federer.....2009.........78.73%
Pete Sampras......1994.........77.48%
Richard Krajicek...1996.........75.66%
Pete Sampras......1999.........75.40%
Roger Federer.....2006.........74.30%
Pete Sampras......1998.........74.17%
Roger Federer.....2005.........74.02%
Pete Sampras......1995.........73.96%
Pete Sampras......1993.........73.95%
Pete Sampras......2000.........73.84%
Rafael Nadal........2010..........73.6%
Rafael Nadal.......2008.........73.37%
Goran Ivanisevic...2001.........73.14%
Roger Federer......2004.........72.18%
Roger Federer.....2007.........72.07%
Novak Djokovic....2011.........71.6%
Michael Stich......1991.........70.80%
Roger Federer.....2003.........70.72%
Lleyton Hewitt.....2002.........69.64%
Andre Agassi.......1992.........64.80%


Ranked by % of first serve points won

Pete Sampras......1994.....89.8%
Pete Sampras......1999.....89.7%
Pete Sampras......1997.....89.4%
Pete Sampras......1998.....89.1%
Richard Krajicek...1996.....88.3%
Roger Federer......2009.....87.5%
Pete Sampras......1995.....87.3%
Pete Sampras......1993.....85.9%
Goran Ivanisevic..2001......85.7%
Pete Sampras......2000.....82.7%
Michael Stich.......1991.....80.3%
Roger Federer......2005.....80.0%
Roger Federer......2006.....79.5%
Rafael Nadal........2010......79.0%
Lleyton Hewitt......2002....78.2%
Roger Federer......2007.....78.0%
Roger Federer.....2003......77.9%
Rafael Nadal.......2008......77.7%
Novak Djokovic....2011......77.4%
Roger Federer.....2004......77.1%
Andre Agassi.......1992......73.1%


Ranked by % of second serve points won

Roger Federer.....2006......64.0%
Roger Federer.....2005......63.0%
Roger Federer.....2004......62.1%
Rafael Nadal.......2008......62.0%
Rafael Nadal.......2010.......61.9%
Roger Federer.....2007......61.0%
Roger Federer.....2009......61.0%
Lleyton Hewitt....2002.......59.6%
Roger Federer.....2003......59.4%
Novak Djokovic....2011......59.0%
Michael Stich....1991........58.6%
Pete Sampras.....2000......57.3%
Pete Sampras.....1997......56.0%
Pete Sampras....1994.......55.3%
Goran Ivanisevic..2001......54.3%
Pete Sampras.....1998......53.8%
Pete Sampras....1995.......53.0%
Richard Krajicek..1996......52.7%
Pete Sampras.....1999......50.2%
Andre Agassi.....1992.......51.7%
Pete Sampras....1993.......49.8%


Ranked by total % of service games held

Pete Sampras.....1997......98.3%
Pete Sampras....1994.......98.1%
Roger Federer.....2009......96.3%
Roger Federer.....2006......96.0%
Rafael Nadal.......2008......96.0%
Pete Sampras.....2000......95.9%
Pete Sampras....1993.......95.9%
Pete Sampras.....1998......95.0%
Pete Sampras.....1999......95.0%
Roger Federer.....2004......94.4%
Rafael Nadal.......2010.......94.4%
Pete Sampras....1995.......93.9%
Goran Ivanisevic..2001......93.9%
Roger Federer.....2005......93.7%
Roger Federer.....2007......93.0%
Roger Federer.....2003......92.4%
Richard Krajicek..1996......91.8%
Michael Stich....1991........91.7%
Lleyton Hewitt....2002.......89.7%
Novak Djokovic...2011.......89.7%
Andre Agassi.....1992.......87.7%


Ranked by least amount of times serve was broken

Pete Sampras......1994.............2
Pete Sampras......1997.............2
Roger Federer......2006.............4
Pete Sampras......1993.............5
Pete Sampras......1999.............5
Pete Sampras......2000.............5
Rafael Nadal........2008.............5
Roger Federer......2009.............5
Richard Krajicek....1996.............6
Pete Sampras......1998.............6
Roger Federer......2004.............6
Roger Federer......2005............7
Roger Federer......2007............7
Rafael Nadal........2010.............7
Pete Sampras......1995............8
Roger Federer......2003............8
Goran Ivanisevic...2001............9
Lleyton Hewitt.....2002.............11
Michael Stich......1991..............11
Novak Djokovic.....2011.............11
Andre Agassi.......1992..............17


Ranked by fewest amount of break points allowed

Roger Federer.....2006...................12
Roger Federer.....2005...................16
Pete Sampras.....1999...................18
Pete Sampras.....1997...................19
Roger Federer.....2009...................19
Pete Sampras....1993....................22
Pete Sampras....1994....................22
Rafael Nadal.......2008...................23
Rafael Nadal........2010..................23
Roger Federer.....2007...................24
Goran Ivanisevic..2001..................27
Novak Djokovic....2011..................28
Pete Sampras.....2000...................29
Richard Krajicek..1996...................30
Roger Federer.....2003...................30
Pete Sampras.....1998...................32
Roger Federer.....2004...................33
Pete Sampras....1995....................35
Lleyton Hewitt....2002...................41
Michael Stich....1991.....................45
Andre Agassi.....1992....................50



Hewitt and Federer use the return of service a lot more than Sampras, Becker, Krajicek, Goran, etc. of the mid 90's since the speed of the court has been slowed down and the returner has more of a chance. Hewitt and Federer served a lot less than everyone else except Sampras of '94 since he was breaking and holding serve. Sampras of 1999 had a retirement by Flip. Had Flip not retired, Sampras probably would've come close to 120 serve games for that year as well.

***A note about Pete's dominance on serve. He had a record of 58-2 from 1992-2000 where he was a SF, W, W, W, QF, W, W, W, W.

In those 60 matches, he had 11 matches where he didn't face a break point at all, and had 31 matches in all where he wasn't broken. That's about 52% of his matches in that run where he wasn't even broken.

Here endeth the research I wanted to display which was done by NYCtennisfan, who I believe unfortunately doesn't post on these forums. Shame.

Nathaniel_Near
12-20-2011, 02:26 AM
It's interesting to see what an impossible challenge Sampras issued at Wimbledon because of his serve, which were surely further helped further by the conditions compared to the grass of today, but perhaps others were not helped more than in the current era as I first suggested, given the stats that were brought up about the service statistics between 1994 and 2011.

Even though Pete lost more sets and games through his Wimbledon victories, somehow his style and insane dominance on his serve in those conditions allowed for a more dominant overall stint at the tournament in which he won 7 out of 8 titles rather than 6 out of 8.

Well, I'm sure many of you will find NYCtennisfan's research interesting and probably have things to say in response to it, so let the show begin.

Sid_Vicious
12-20-2011, 02:29 AM
^^^

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y141/zerdt/comic/tldr-bush.jpg

Nathaniel_Near
12-20-2011, 02:32 AM
^^^

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y141/zerdt/comic/tldr-bush.jpg

You don't need to read the bulk but you could just flash over the pure numbers and stats as you might find them interesting without having to read the vast amount of commentary.

Sid_Vicious
12-20-2011, 02:33 AM
You don't need to read the bulk but you could just flash over the pure numbers and stats as you might find them interesting without having to read the vast amount of commentary.

I just love that picture and wanted to post it.

I am looking at your posts right now.

Nathaniel_Near
12-20-2011, 02:44 AM
I just love that picture and wanted to post it.

I am looking at your posts right now.

:D Yeah I did guess that could well be the case, and the pic is a winner.:twisted:

MichaelNadal
12-20-2011, 02:46 AM
^^^

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y141/zerdt/comic/tldr-bush.jpg

http://michaeljacksonanimatedgifs.com/images/others/mjgifs32.gif

helloworld
12-20-2011, 02:49 AM
It's interesting to see what an impossible challenge Sampras issued at Wimbledon because of his serve, which were surely further helped further by the conditions compared to the grass of today, but perhaps others were not helped more than in the current era as I first suggested, given the stats that were brought up about the service statistics between 1994 and 2011.

Even though Pete lost more sets and games through his Wimbledon victories, somehow his style and insane dominance on his serve in those conditions allowed for a more dominant overall stint at the tournament in which he won 7 out of 8 titles rather than 6 out of 8.

Well, I'm sure many of you will find NYCtennisfan's research interesting and probably have things to say in response to it, so let the show begin.

The stats you brought up does tend to favor Pete more, which isn't a surprise really. But one must consider the difference in competition, and equipment as well. Overall, the comparison may give us a small clue between two eras, but we shouldn't look into it too deeply.

helloworld
12-20-2011, 03:16 AM
Ranked by total % of service games held

Pete Sampras.....1997......98.3%
Pete Sampras....1994.......98.1%
Roger Federer.....2009......96.3%
Roger Federer.....2006......96.0%
Rafael Nadal.......2008......96.0%
Pete Sampras.....2000......95.9%
Pete Sampras....1993.......95.9%
Pete Sampras.....1998......95.0%
Pete Sampras.....1999......95.0%
Roger Federer.....2004......94.4%
Rafael Nadal.......2010.......94.4%
Pete Sampras....1995.......93.9%
Goran Ivanisevic..2001......93.9%
Roger Federer.....2005......93.7%
Roger Federer.....2007......93.0%
Roger Federer.....2003......92.4%
Richard Krajicek..1996......91.8%
Michael Stich....1991........91.7%
Lleyton Hewitt....2002.......89.7%
Novak Djokovic...2011.......89.7%
Andre Agassi.....1992.......87.7%


This, to me sums up everything, and Pete really dominated in this department. For once the myth is true. At close to 99% service game held, Pete is virtually unbreakable. What astound me more is Nadal in 2008 and 2010 actually have 90%+ service game held!! And Nadal isn't even a great server!! This is a justification of the greatness of Nadal's baseline game on grass.

Russeljones
12-20-2011, 03:35 AM
Great post Nathaniel, food for thought indeed.

celoft
12-20-2011, 04:58 AM
Great stats..

Crazy man
12-20-2011, 08:45 AM
In the 1992 Wimbledon quarter finals, Sampras beat defending champion, Stich, who Sampras usually had trouble with, in less than 90 minutes. As for Roddick, apart from 2009 I honestly think Hewitt was more of a threat to Federer. The 2004 Wimbledon match was much closer than the breadstick and bagel suggests.

Lol. In the Federer domination years at Wimbledon, Roddick made a SF and two finals, and gave Federer a run for his money in 2009. Hewitt was too busy losing to Karlovic in 2003, 2004 Roddick gave Federer a tougher match than Hewitt and should have won, Roddick choked 04 and 09. Federer got lucky a little in 2003 when Roddick had set point and Federer had a nice net chord drop on Roddick's side. Hewitt got beatdown in 2004 and 2005. Had no chance in either match.


Since 2002, when Roddick was maturing and Hewitt was a slam winner, Roddick's record on grass has been A LOT better than Hewitt's. Period!

Nathaniel_Near
12-20-2011, 09:31 AM
Lol. In the Federer domination years at Wimbledon, Roddick made a SF and two finals, and gave Federer a run for his money in 2009. Hewitt was too busy losing to Karlovic in 2003, 2004 Roddick gave Federer a tougher match than Hewitt and should have won, Roddick choked 04 and 09. Federer got lucky a little in 2003 when Roddick had set point and Federer had a nice net chord drop on Roddick's side. Hewitt got beatdown in 2004 and 2005. Had no chance in either match.


Since 2002, when Roddick was maturing and Hewitt was a slam winner, Roddick's record on grass has been A LOT better than Hewitt's. Period!

Isn't Mustard a hardcore Hewitt fan.

TMF
12-20-2011, 09:43 AM
Isn't Mustard a hardcore Hewitt fan.

Nadal & Muster are his favorite players.

Nathaniel_Near
12-20-2011, 09:59 AM
Nadal & Muster are his favorite players.

I know, especially Muster. But, I sense Hewitt is in third place.


Well I suppose it isn't totally ridiculous to say Hewitt was a bigger threat but still I felt this factor was worth pointing out.:)

DjokovicForTheWin
12-20-2011, 10:15 AM
So what was the summary of all those numbers. One sentence only please.

aphex
12-20-2011, 10:18 AM
So what was the summary of all those numbers. One sentence only please.

Sampras has the better serve and Federer is the better player.

Crazy man
12-20-2011, 10:30 AM
I know, especially Muster. But, I sense Hewitt is in third place.


Well I suppose it isn't totally ridiculous to say Hewitt was a bigger threat but still I felt this factor was worth pointing out.:)

Since when was Hewitt a bigger threat to Federer on grass than Roddick? When Federer was handing out 6-0 6-1 sets to Hewitt at Wimbledon semifinals, whilst Roddick was losing to Federer 16-14 in the fifth set?:roll:


Roddick could have done damage at Wimbledon 2003 to Federer, but got unlucky and played like total crap after the first set. How many first serves did Roddick actually hit? Meanwhile Hewitt, supposedly being a bigger threat was losing to guys with one shot coughcoughKarloviccoughcoughilold, 2004 Hewitt stated he played as well as he could, yet got a complete beatdown - one of the most unconvincing 4 setters ever. 2005 both Roddick and Hewitt got owned - but we should not forget Hewitt's 2005 level was his highest ever, and Roddick completely dropped off and played without a backhand and his forehand was a lob.


Even when both players officially left the 'contender for Wimbledon' status, Roddick was still talked about as a guy who still had something inside him to challenege the top guys, and pushed ridiculously at W07 and still made the QF. Both players played well in 2009, and their match could have gone either way, but would Hewitt have beaten Murray and pushed Federer 16-14 in the final set if he did beat Roddick that day? I'm not so sure........

woodrow1029
12-20-2011, 10:30 AM
He did not lose a grass court match from June 2002 to June 2008.

That's 6 years dummy. Do you need some arithmetic lessons?

That's out there aphex, considering he lost three times in June, 2002. You're seriously going to count the time between his loss at Wimbledon, 2002, to his first match at Halle in 2003?

Nathaniel_Near
12-20-2011, 10:39 AM
Since when was Hewitt a bigger threat to Federer on grass than Roddick? When Federer was handing out 6-0 6-1 sets to Hewitt at Wimbledon semifinals, whilst Roddick was losing to Federer 16-14 in the fifth set?:roll:


Roddick could have done damage at Wimbledon 2003 to Federer, but got unlucky and played like total crap after the first set. How many first serves did Roddick actually hit? Meanwhile Hewitt, supposedly being a bigger threat was losing to guys with one shot coughcoughKarloviccoughcoughilold, 2004 Hewitt stated he played as well as he could, yet got a complete beatdown - one of the most unconvincing 4 setters ever. 2005 both Roddick and Hewitt got owned - but we should not forget Hewitt's 2005 level was his highest ever, and Roddick completely dropped off and played without a backhand and his forehand was a lob.


Even when both players officially left the 'contender for Wimbledon' status, Roddick was still talked about as a guy who still had something inside him to challenege the top guys, and pushed ridiculously at W07 and still made the QF. Both players played well in 2009, and their match could have gone either way, but would Hewitt have beaten Murray and pushed Federer 16-14 in the final set if he did beat Roddick that day? I'm not so sure........

Like I said, it isn't totally ridiculous like some other crazy things I've read on the board recently, but the viewpoint is *highly dubious*, which is why I've made a sly remark concerning fandom.:)

There is no doubt in my mind as to who offers the greater challenge on grass, despite Hewitt's Halle 2010 victory, and that man is Duckster.

Mustard
12-20-2011, 11:57 AM
Lol. In the Federer domination years at Wimbledon, Roddick made a SF and two finals, and gave Federer a run for his money in 2009. Hewitt was too busy losing to Karlovic in 2003, 2004 Roddick gave Federer a tougher match than Hewitt and should have won, Roddick choked 04 and 09. Federer got lucky a little in 2003 when Roddick had set point and Federer had a nice net chord drop on Roddick's side. Hewitt got beatdown in 2004 and 2005. Had no chance in either match.

The first thing to remember here is that Hewitt ended 2003 at number 17 in the world, having had indifferent results for most of the year and having not played at all in singles competition after the US Open due to a dispute with the ATP and his focus on the Davis Cup. As a result of this, Hewitt was running into prime Federer earlier in the draws in 2004 and thus losing the opportunity to get more ranking points. Roddick, by contrast, ended 2003 as world number 1, and was always in the top 2 throughout 2004, so wasn't running into Federer until the final.

Regarding the 2004 Wimbledon quarter final match between Federer and Hewitt, it was closer than the 6-1, 6-7, 6-0, 6-4 scoreline suggests, as I said before. The sets that Federer won 6-1 and 6-0 had many deuce games, and Hewitt was 4-3 up with a break in the fourth set.

As for 2005 Wimbledon, Hewitt was seeded at number 3 by the All England club while Roddick was seeded at number 2, despite Hewitt being world number 2 and a former Wimbledon champion while Roddick was ranked world number 4. Very wrong decision, which enabled Roddick to get to the final while Hewitt was out in the semi finals.

Since 2002, when Roddick was maturing and Hewitt was a slam winner, Roddick's record on grass has been A LOT better than Hewitt's. Period!

Hewitt's prime was over by 2006. Also, Hewitt only lost to eventual major champions at the majors in 2004 and 2005. And Hewitt's record in grass-court finals is 100% at 7-0.

I know, especially Muster. But, I sense Hewitt is in third place.

Ivanisevic is my third favourite. Hewitt is somewhere just behind him.

BeHappy
12-20-2011, 12:02 PM
Wouldn't Federer need 2 more? I thought he had 6 to Sampras's 7?

kiki
12-20-2011, 01:29 PM
Five greatest grass-court men’s tennis players: A fan’s take (http://sports.yahoo.com/tennis/news?slug=ycn-8626803)

1. Roger Federer
2. Pete Sampras
3. Bjorn Borg
4. William Reshaw
5. Rod Laver



Honorable Mention:

Lawrence and Reggie Doherty
Boris Becker
John McEnroe
Rafael Nadal

Where is Newcombe, he won 7 major grass court titles, more than Mc,Becker and, of course, MUCH more than Nadal.

Nathaniel_Near
12-20-2011, 01:49 PM
The thread is about Wimbledon specifically, rather than grass, but yes he deserves a mention given his 3 titles... (one of which I have uploaded highlights for).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SklUQD02Bs8

kiki
12-20-2011, 01:51 PM
The thread is about Wimbledon specifically, rather than grass, but yes he deserves a mention given his 3 titles... (one of which I have uploaded highlights for).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SklUQD02Bs8

Thank You.Good one.

Fredrik
12-20-2011, 01:59 PM
Well, he won Halle 6 years in a row. 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008. so considering he started with halle in that streak and ended at wimbledon.. carrying him through slightly more than 6 years of winning on grass.

so, it's a 6 year winning streak..if you look at it from start to the last halle event he won, plus falling something like 5 points shy of a 6th wimbledon.

Try this:
1. Get calendars for 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008
2. Count the number of days between the 1st round of Halle 2003 and the Wimbledon final in 2008.
3. Divide by 365 (never mind the leap years)

Sid_Vicious
12-20-2011, 02:01 PM
Try this:
1. Get calendars for 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008
2. Count the number of days between the 1st round of Halle 2003 and the Wimbledon final in 2008.
3. Divide by 365 (never mind the leap years)

I think the total is about 5 years and 30 days.

Nathaniel_Near
12-20-2011, 02:14 PM
I actually did an 6 part video series on Roger's Wimbledon history. Here is part 6.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTNpeN48fzg

Crazy man
12-20-2011, 04:11 PM
The first thing to remember here is that Hewitt ended 2003 at number 17 in the world, having had indifferent results for most of the year and having not played at all in singles competition after the US Open due to a dispute with the ATP and his focus on the Davis Cup. As a result of this, Hewitt was running into prime Federer earlier in the draws in 2004 and thus losing the opportunity to get more ranking points. Roddick, by contrast, ended 2003 as world number 1, and was always in the top 2 throughout 2004, so wasn't running into Federer until the final.

So it's Roddick's fault Hewitt's ranking got so low and was losing to Karlovic at Wimbledon? By the way Roddick didn't even play Federer in any final in 2003. They contested a few matches at Montreal QF where Roddick actually won, and the MC 03 and WSF's. So Roddick was actually facing Federer before the final in his best year.



Regarding the 2004 Wimbledon quarter final match between Federer and Hewitt, it was closer than the 6-1, 6-7, 6-0, 6-4 scoreline suggests, as I said before. The sets that Federer won 6-1 and 6-0 had many deuce games, and Hewitt was 4-3 up with a break in the fourth set.

Well that's your opinion. Federer never looked like losing that match. Please, the Roddick match was a lot more competitive, Roddick winning the first set, up a break in the 3rd 4-2 before the rain kicked in, and choking a number of break points during that match. If Hewitt challeneged Federer at W04, Roddick beat him, get me?




As for 2005 Wimbledon, Hewitt was seeded at number 3 by the All England club while Roddick was seeded at number 2, despite Hewitt being world number 2 and a former Wimbledon champion while Roddick was ranked world number 4. Very wrong decision, which enabled Roddick to get to the final while Hewitt was out in the semi finals.


Quit while you're behind. Roddick's performances at Wimbledon and Queens since Roddick made it to the top completely p!ssed on Hewitt's grass court showings (although overall Hewitt is ahead for what he did in 2002). Roddick was clearly the 2nd best grasscourter and even had a winning record over Hewitt on grass. Wimbledon hand seedings out for grass court performances - Roddick from 03 had a semi and a final, as well as a few Queens club wins and was the only guy who nearly beat Federer from 03-07 when Nadal showed up.



Hewitt's prime was over by 2006. Also, Hewitt only lost to eventual major champions at the majors in 2004 and 2005. And Hewitt's record in grass-court finals is 100% at 7-0..


Hewitt for grasscourt GOAT???

nice double standard by the way; If Hewitt was seeded higher and did play Federer in his finals, not some guy called Nalbandian (lol), his record wouldn't be 100%. Roddick played dredful at Wimbledon after 2004, yet his record after that with Hewitt from 2005+ at Wimbledon is still miles better.

Tammo
12-20-2011, 04:29 PM
No, Fed needs 2 more + he had VERY weak GC competition in 03- 05 ish. There were no Tsongas, Berdyches or Isners during that period. There were only injured Hewitt's and Hass's oh and a fat David.

zagor
12-20-2011, 04:42 PM
No, Fed needs 2 more + he had VERY weak GC competition in 03- 05 ish. There were no Tsongas, Berdyches

Tsonga and Berdych are no where near the grasscourt players Hewitt and Roddick are(or were atleast).

2004 versions of Roddick and Hewitt would have pounded the crap out of the lame ***** Fed that showed in 2010 and 2011 Wimbledon, the guy should have lost to freakin Falla for Pete's sake.

or Isners during that period.

Is this supposed to be a joke? Isner never got past the 2nd round in Wimbledon.

Andy Roddick is a bigger threat at RG than Isner is at Wimbledon.

There were only injured Hewitt's and Hass's oh and a fat David.

Fed didn't play Haas at Wimbledon until 2009 and has faced Nalbandian on grass the first time ever this year.

As for Hewitt, as I said he's twice the grasscourter Berdych and Tsonga are, nor was he injured in 2004 and 2005 Wimbledon.

Sid_Vicious
12-20-2011, 04:43 PM
No, Fed needs 2 more + he had VERY weak GC competition in 03- 05 ish. There were no Tsongas, Berdyches or Isners during that period. There were only injured Hewitt's and Hass's oh and a fat David.

Are you a moron? Hewitt, Nalbandian, and Roddick are far greater tennis players than Tsongas, Berdyches, or Isners (WTF? Isner? :confused:). Do your research, please. Hewitt was not injured in either 2004 or 2005. Fat David did not play Federer at Wimbledon until 2011.

What the hell is "Hass's oh"? If you mean Tommy HAAS, he did not face off against Federer at Wimbledon until 2009. He was hardly weak competition. He beat Djokovic rather handily in the round before and a week earlier at Halle.

Crazy man
12-20-2011, 04:44 PM
^^^Got Skyrim yet?

Sid_Vicious
12-20-2011, 04:48 PM
^^^Got Skyrim yet?

I am sorry. I do not know what you are talking about, Crazy Man.

zagor
12-20-2011, 04:48 PM
^^^Got Skyrim yet?

Nah, I'm gonna get it after the new year though. Watched it a little at friends, he seems to have made some kind of overpowered sneaking backstabber, he's even one shoting (one backstabbing) dragons on master difficulty.

zagor
12-20-2011, 04:49 PM
I am sorry. I do not know what you are talking about, Crazy Man.

I think he mean to ask me, it's a video game :)

Tammo
12-20-2011, 04:50 PM
Tsonga and Berdych are no where near the grasscourt players Hewitt and Roddick are(or were atleast).

2004 versions of Roddick and Hewitt would have pounded the crap out of the lame ***** Fed that showed in 2010 and 2011 Wimbledon, the guy should have lost to freakin Falla for Pete's sake.



Is this supposed to be a joke? Isner never got past the 2nd round in Wimbledon.

Andy Roddick is a bigger threat at RG than Isner is at Wimbledon.



Fed didn't play Haas at Wimbledon until 2009 and has faced Nalbandian on grass the first time ever this year.

As for Hewitt, as I said he's twice the grasscourter Berdych and Tsonga are, nor was he injured in 2004 and 2005 Wimbledon.

I'm showing that Fed got lucky playing guys like Hewit or Nalbandian who both had very many injuries during their carreers. Or Roddick who if one little thing goes wrong he's off like a rocket swearing at the umps.

If Fed played a 2010 isner in 04' Fed couldn't handle the FH that Roddick never had.

As I have said before Fed didn't get a chance to play injury proned Hass's or Nalbandians.

Sid_Vicious
12-20-2011, 04:50 PM
I think he mean to ask me, it's a video game :)

Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying. :)

Crazy man
12-20-2011, 04:50 PM
I am sorry. I do not know what you are talking about, Crazy Man.

Nah, don't worry, was talking to Zag, old internet friends lol! But feel free to chime in.

zagor
12-20-2011, 04:51 PM
Are you a moron? Hewitt, Nalbandian, and Roddick are far greater tennis players than Tsongas, Berdyches, or Isners (WTF? Isner? :confused:). Do your research, please. Hewitt was not injured in either 2004 or 2005. Fat David did not play Federer at Wimbledon until 2011.

What the hell is "Hass's oh"? If you mean Tommy HAAS, he did not face off against Federer at Wimbledon until 2009. He was hardly weak competition. He beat Djokovic rather handily in the round before and a week earlier at Halle.

Soon we'll be hearing how even the likes of Donald Young are tougher competition than Hewitt, Roddick and Safin, to what degree people here underrate those guys is amazing.

Crazy man
12-20-2011, 04:52 PM
Nah, I'm gonna get it after the new year though. Watched it a little at friends, he seems to have made some kind of overpowered sneaking backstabber, he's even one shoting (one backstabbing) dragons on master difficulty.

Lol, good, so much better than Oblivion. Get it on PC. I have it on 360 but PC you have the choice of mods, or if you want you can use the console to your hearts content.

zagor
12-20-2011, 04:53 PM
I'm showing that Fed got lucky playing guys like Hewit or Nalbandian who both had very many injuries during their carreers. Or Roddick who if one little thing goes wrong he's off like a rocket swearing at the umps.

Again, he never played Nalbandian on grass until this year.

If Fed played a 2010 isner in 04' Fed couldn't handle the FH that Roddick never had.

2003-2004 Roddick's FH>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Isner's FH.

As I have said before Fed didn't get a chance to play injury proned Hass's or Nalbandians.

Once again, he didn't play Haas at Wimbledon until 2009 and Nalbandian until 2011.

Crazy man
12-20-2011, 04:53 PM
Soon we'll be hearing how even the likes of Donald Young are tougher competition than Hewitt, Roddick and Safin, to what degree people here underrate those guys is amazing.

Oh Safin if he was motivated could come back to the tour now and still challenege guys like Tsonga, Berdych and Isner, I wouldn't worry too much about that troll.

Tammo
12-20-2011, 04:55 PM
Are you a moron? Hewitt, Nalbandian, and Roddick are far greater tennis players than Tsongas, Berdyches, or Isners (WTF? Isner? :confused:). Do your research, please. Hewitt was not injured in either 2004 or 2005. Fat David did not play Federer at Wimbledon until 2011.

What the hell is "Hass's oh"? If you mean Tommy HAAS, he did not face off against Federer at Wimbledon until 2009. He was hardly weak competition. He beat Djokovic rather handily in the round before and a week earlier at Halle.

Because they were injured or too fat to move. thats what I said in my post. Hass proved to be a good GC player by beating Djok easily. Fat David couldn't play Fed because he wasn't fit duuh. you must not have seen Fed vs berdych Wim 2010.

zagor
12-20-2011, 04:57 PM
Lol, good, so much better than Oblivion. Get it on PC. I have it on 360 but PC you have the choice of mods, or if you want you can use the console to your hearts content.

Don't have a console at the moment so yeah it's PC for me.

I never got into Oblivion honestly, the world seemed a bit too bland and generic, not to mention that the level scaling screwede the whole thing up.

Did play Morrowind quite a bit back in the day though, great game, very interesting graphic design/arhitecture(very different from usual generic fantasy crap).

Crazy man
12-20-2011, 04:59 PM
Don't have a console at the moment so yeah it's PC for me.

I never got into Oblivion honestly, the world seemed a bit too bland and generic, not to mention that the level scaling screwede the whole thing up.

Did play Morrowind quite a bit back in the day though, great game, very interesting graphic design/arhitecture(very different from usual generic fantasy crap).

This. It's comical that an Iron dagger takes off as much damage ratio as a daedric dagger because of how everyone else levelled up too. Laughable!

Tammo
12-20-2011, 04:59 PM
Again, he never played Nalbandian on grass until this year.



2003-2004 Roddick's FH>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Isner's FH.



Once again, he didn't play Haas at Wimbledon until 2009 and Nalbandian until 2011.

Roddick never had a flat FH. Injuries are why Federer didn't play them before a couple of years ago...

zagor
12-20-2011, 05:00 PM
Because they were injured or too fat to move. thats what I said in my post. Hass proved to be a good GC player by beating Djok easily. Fat David couldn't play Fed because he wasn't fit duuh. you must not have seen Fed vs berdych Wim 2010.

The same Wimbledon in which Fed was on the brink of losing to grasscourt demon Falla in the 1st round?

On the contrary, I'd say it's more likely that you didn't watch Fed on grass in 2003-2005.

Sid_Vicious
12-20-2011, 05:01 PM
Because they were injured or too fat to move. thats what I said in my post. Hass proved to be a good GC player by beating Djok easily. Fat David couldn't play Fed because he wasn't fit duuh. you must not have seen Fed vs berdych Wim 2010.

http://cdn.hotstockmarket.com/e/eb/1000x500px-LL-ebb22674_not-sure-if-serious.jpg

Crazy man
12-20-2011, 05:02 PM
Roddick never had a flat FH. Injuries are why Federer didn't play them before a couple of years ago...

This is actualy true, Roddick's forehand wasn't flat, but it was absolutely huge with lots of spin. You are correct accidently, because you have never watched Roddick play. I can tell by the way you post complete crap about him (and other players). You don't hit through Nadal at Miami like Roddick did without having a big forehand. Mods delete thread or ban this frikkin' idiot!

zagor
12-20-2011, 05:02 PM
This. It's comical that an Iron dagger takes off as much damage ratio as a daedric dagger because of how everyone else levelled up too. Laughable!

Weren't there lowlife bandits equipped from head to toe in daedric armor when you reached high enough level? Hilarious stuff.

Bethesda did admit they went overboard with level scaling though, I hope it's toned down in Skyrim.

zagor
12-20-2011, 05:05 PM
Roddick never had a flat FH. Injuries are why Federer didn't play them before a couple of years ago...

Roddick was never a flat hitter, however his FH was very heavy in 2003/2004, hit with tons of pace and spin. Even Fed who at the time was the best in the game in dealing with big hitters was overhwelmed a bit by Roddick's power in 2004 Wimbledon final.

Honestly you should try to find that match somewhere on the net and watch it, it might stop you from making silly comparisons with Isner.

Crazy man
12-20-2011, 05:06 PM
Weren't there lowlife bandits equipped from head to toe in daedric armor when you reached high enough level? Hilarious stuff.

Bethesda did admit they went overboard with level scaling though, I hope it's toned down in Skyrim.

Yeah, people carrying expensive weapons and tons of coin yet still begging in remote locations. Nope, Skyrim is probably the best game I've played of it's fantasy kind. Regardless of what level you are, you'll find some characters easy to kill, some quite difficult and some impossible to kill. Anyways, going now, see ya!

zagor
12-20-2011, 05:08 PM
Yeah, people carrying expensive weapons and tons of coin yet still begging in remote locations. Nope, Skyrim is probably the best game I've played of it's fantasy kind. Regardless of what level you are, you'll find some characters easy to kill, some quite difficult and some impossible to kill. Anyways, going now, see ya!

Can't wait to get it then.

See ya later.

DragonBlaze
12-20-2011, 05:11 PM
^^^Got Skyrim yet?

Nah, I'm gonna get it after the new year though. Watched it a little at friends, he seems to have made some kind of overpowered sneaking backstabber, he's even one shoting (one backstabbing) dragons on master difficulty.

Don't have a console at the moment so yeah it's PC for me.

I never got into Oblivion honestly, the world seemed a bit too bland and generic, not to mention that the level scaling screwede the whole thing up.

Did play Morrowind quite a bit back in the day though, great game, very interesting graphic design/arhitecture(very different from usual generic fantasy crap).

Morrowind had this fantastic alien feel to it. Also the graphical overhaul mods to it really are pretty awesome. I think you may be a bit disappointed since Skyrim is also kinda generic in its art direction, maybe not so much as Oblivion but still. Just a heads up.

Too bad I've never finished an ES game. Open world RPGs just arent my thing I think, since I like a really good narrative driven experience. That's why I loved the Witcher 2. I like Skyrim though, dragons are awesome (especially when they fly backwards LOL). It's funny, I'm more a JRPG person but they have all been crap this generation whereas Western ones have really been pretty good, unfortunately I can never finish them. :)

Oh yeah, level scaling is better as Crazy man said. However it is easy to "break" the game so to speak by going overboard with smithing/enchanting etc and becoming overpowered, making the game too easy.

zagor
12-20-2011, 05:22 PM
Morrowind had this fantastic alien feel to it. Also the graphical overhaul mods to it really are pretty awesome. I think you may be a bit disappointed since Skyrim is also kinda generic in its art direction, maybe not so much as Oblivion but still. Just a heads up.

Yup, alien is the right word for it, it really has a unique strange feel to it. From what I've seen(at friends and some videos) Skyrim does seem to have a charm of its own (the whole northern frozen Viking like region has potential) but I'll see for myself I guess, thanks for the warning :). For me graphics design was always more important than the engine itself to be honest but yeah there are some great graphics overhauling mods for Morrowind( like Morrowind graphics extender, some texture mods and the like).

Too bad I've never finished an ES game. Open world RPGs just arent my thing I think, since I like a really good narrative driven experience. That's why I loved the Witcher 2. I like Skyrim though, dragons are awesome (especially when they fly backwards LOL). It's funny, I'm more a JRPG person but they have all been crap this generation whereas Western ones have really been pretty good, unfortunately I can never finish them. :)

Well in ES games main storyline is never the main strength or attraction of the game, it's all the exploring, various character builds, countless side quests (obviousl quantity over quality), interesting lore of the world(before Oblivion anyway).

I don't get into sandbox RPGs either all that much, Morrowind is more of an exception. I mean I also love Fallout 1&2, Arcanum and Gothic 1 though but while they have some elements of sandbox RPGs they're much smaller in scope and focused(thus resulting in more interesting quests and characters having much more depth) compared to mammoth ES games.

The game that gets the balance the best when it comes to CRPGs for me is BG2 though, everything is in the right dosage there.

Oh yeah, level scaling is better as Crazy man said. However it is easy to "break" the game so to speak by going overboard with smithing/enchanting etc and becoming overpowered, making the game too easy.

Enchanting exploits can break any ES game (heck I remember 100% sanctuary in Morrowind, nobody could hit you LOL). I don't fault Bethesda on that one, when you make a game of this scope(aimed at a very large audience) it's hard to get a balanced system that can't be exploited while still making the game managable for casual RPG games.

Mustard
12-20-2011, 05:31 PM
So it's Roddick's fault Hewitt's ranking got so low and was losing to Karlovic at Wimbledon?

No. I didn't say that. Stop putting words in my mouth.

By the way Roddick didn't even play Federer in any final in 2003.

Good job I said 2004 then.

They contested a few matches at Montreal QF where Roddick actually won, and the MC 03 and WSF's. So Roddick was actually facing Federer before the final in his best year.

I know, but I didn't say what you think I said.

Well that's your opinion. Federer never looked like losing that match. Please, the Roddick match was a lot more competitive, Roddick winning the first set, up a break in the 3rd 4-2 before the rain kicked in, and choking a number of break points during that match. If Hewitt challeneged Federer at W04, Roddick beat him, get me?

I said that it was more competitive than the scoreline suggested.

Quit while you're behind. Roddick's performances at Wimbledon and Queens since Roddick made it to the top completely p!ssed on Hewitt's grass court showings (although overall Hewitt is ahead for what he did in 2002). Roddick was clearly the 2nd best grasscourter and even had a winning record over Hewitt on grass. Wimbledon hand seedings out for grass court performances - Roddick from 03 had a semi and a final, as well as a few Queens club wins and was the only guy who nearly beat Federer from 03-07 when Nadal showed up.

Sorry, but Wimbledon's decision to seed Roddick at number 2 and Hewitt at number 3 in 2005, was a disgrace. Hewitt was a former Wimbledon champion, led Roddick 6-1 in head-to-head and was world number 2. That does not deserve a seeding demotion so that the world number 4, who has never won Wimbledon, can take your spot.

Hewitt for grasscourt GOAT???

No, but he has a 100% record in grass-court finals, as I said.

nice double standard by the way; If Hewitt was seeded higher and did play Federer in his finals, not some guy called Nalbandian (lol), his record wouldn't be 100%.

Well, Federer lost to Ancic in the first round of that tournament.

Roddick played dredful at Wimbledon after 2004, yet his record after that with Hewitt from 2005+ at Wimbledon is still miles better.

Hewitt lost his peak speed and timing after his late 2005 injury problems. Roddick relies most on his serve, one of the last things to go with age.

DragonBlaze
12-20-2011, 05:34 PM
Yup, alien is the right word for it, it really has a unique strange feel to it. From what I've seen(at friends and some videos) Skyrim does seem to have a charm of its own (the whole northern frozen Viking like region has potential) but I'll see for myself I guess, thanks for the warning :). For me graphics design was always more important than the engine itself to be honest but yeah there are some great graphics overhauling mods for Morrowind( like Morrowind graphics extender, some texture mods and the like).

The game that gets the balance the best when it comes to CRPGs for me is BG2 though, everything is in the right dosage there.


.

Agreed about art direction trumping technical prowess.

It is so sad that I haven't played BG2 :oops:. 2 years ago, I started playing BG since I wanted the whole experience. I downloaded the TuTu mod which lets you play BG in BG2's engine (BG2 has aged so well, BG not so much :lol:).

I really enjoyed it as well! Must have spent countless hours on it. Truly fun game, and really immersive I must say, especially how the party members sometimes just randomly come up to you strike up a conversation, never had that in a game before. Unfortunately my holidays finished just when I actually reached the city of BG, and since then I haven't finished it. And now I've forgotten everything but cant be bothered replaying from the start lol. So I want to play number 2 but I don't know whether to try and finish 1 or just read the story on wiki and skip to 2?

zagor
12-20-2011, 05:47 PM
Agreed about art direction trumping technical prowess.

It is so sad that I haven't played BG2 :oops:. 2 years ago, I started playing BG since I wanted the whole experience. I downloaded the TuTu mod which lets you play BG in BG2's engine (BG2 has aged so well, BG not so much :lol:).

I really enjoyed it as well! Must have spent countless hours on it. Truly fun game, and really immersive I must say, especially how the party members sometimes just randomly come up to you strike up a conversation, never had that in a game before. Unfortunately my holidays finished just when I actually reached the city of BG, and since then I haven't finished it. And now I've forgotten everything but cant be bothered replaying from the start lol. So I want to play number 2 but I don't know whether to try and finish 1 or just read the story on wiki and skip to 2?

Truth to be told I know a lot of people who couldn't get into BG1 enough to go through with the whole game but absolutely loved the sequel so I'd advise you to just load up BG2, it improves up upon a lot of things, the party interaction for one( honestly don't know any RPG that did it better, since you liked that part in BG 1 you're probably gonna love it in the sequel), obviously more classes/skills/spells and combinations of it (especially if you also install the expansion), better pacing etc. You can always go back to BG1 afterwards, if you want to experience it all as one long RPG story.

Now I love BG1 for nostalgic reasons and I usually have a preference for low level RPGs than epic ones in general, in BG1 you're jumping out of joy when you find a sword +1 and atleast in the beginning are in great danger of being one shotted by ogres and wolves or gunned down by kobolds and such. Overall though BG2 is a better game, starting dungeon can be boring but after that the game's amazing.

You can read the story in the wiki or something or even just watch the intro in BG2, it does a solid job of explaining the story so far.

DragonBlaze
12-20-2011, 06:20 PM
Truth to be told I know a lot of people who couldn't get into BG1 enough to go through with the whole game but absolutely loved the sequel so I'd advise you to just load up BG2, it improves up upon a lot of things, the party interaction for one( honestly don't know any RPG that did it better, since you liked that part in BG 1 you're probably gonna love it in the sequel), obviously more classes/skills/spells and combinations of it (especially if you also install the expansion), better pacing etc. You can always go back to BG1 afterwards, if you want to experience it all as one long RPG story.

Now I love BG1 for nostalgic reasons and I usually have a preference for low level RPGs than epic ones in general, in BG1 you're jumping out of joy when you find a sword +1 and atleast in the beginning are in great danger of being one shotted by ogres and wolves or gunned down by kobolds and such. Overall though BG2 is a better game, starting dungeon can be boring but after that the game's amazing.

You can read the story in the wiki or something or even just watch the intro in BG2, it does a solid job of explaining the story so far.

You have convinced me :). Now I just gotta find where in the world the discs are :lol:

Tammo
12-20-2011, 06:54 PM
This is actualy true, Roddick's forehand wasn't flat, but it was absolutely huge with lots of spin. You are correct accidently, because you have never watched Roddick play. I can tell by the way you post complete crap about him (and other players). You don't hit through Nadal at Miami like Roddick did without having a big forehand. Mods delete thread or ban this frikkin' idiot!

IF Roddick had a huge topspin FH, (a) the ball would force Fed to have more errors (b) Roddick would have more winners. Simple logic for smart people.
Now A-Rod obviously played better in 09' than 04' and people on this forum were saying it was close to the 04' final. Now I found the 09' Wimbledon stats.


Fed Rod
107 74 no. of winners
38 33 no. of errors


Now Fed does have 5 more UE's but it is small enough to show that Roddick didn't force Fed to make mistakes. Now Fed had 33 more winners than Rod. That proves that Rod didn't have tons of topspin.

On a separate note I now am sure that you are 8 years old...

Biscuitmcgriddleson
12-20-2011, 07:11 PM
IF Roddick had a huge topspin FH, (a) the ball would force Fed to have more errors (b) Roddick would have more winners. Simple logic for smart people.
Now A-Rod obviously played better in 09' than 04' and people on this forum were saying it was close to the 04' final. Now I found the 09' Wimbledon stats.


Fed Rod
107 74 no. of winners
38 33 no. of errors


Now Fed does have 5 more UE's but it is small enough to show that Roddick didn't force Fed to make mistakes. Now Fed had 33 more winners than Rod. That proves that Rod didn't have tons of topspin.

On a separate note I now am sure that you are 8 years old...

Tammo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsgvB7ROqrY

Meet Roddick's forehand.

BrooklynNY
12-20-2011, 07:16 PM
IF Roddick had a huge topspin FH, (a) the ball would force Fed to have more errors (b) Roddick would have more winners. Simple logic for smart people.
Now A-Rod obviously played better in 09' than 04' and people on this forum were saying it was close to the 04' final. Now I found the 09' Wimbledon stats.


Fed Rod
107 74 no. of winners
38 33 no. of errors


Now Fed does have 5 more UE's but it is small enough to show that Roddick didn't force Fed to make mistakes. Now Fed had 33 more winners than Rod. That proves that Rod didn't have tons of topspin.

On a separate note I now am sure that you are 8 years old...

This makes no sense. Topspin does not equate to winners, especially on grass. There is alot more that goes into why Fed makes Errors off of Nadal's shots, not just topspin. How about the Relentless power and placement Nadal displays for starters.

Roddick hits loads of spin, with no power, that land at the service line, with nowhere near the consistency and depth of Nadal when he is playing well, therefore the same effect is not achieved

Fed doesn't make mistakes because Roddick's shots off his backhand are lame for the most part and consistently land around the service line, and he just doesn't try to hit winners, therefore, players make less forced errors. He hits a slice, which is not even as effective at Federer's, and we already know how their forehands compare.

Roddick does hit with loads of spin, if you play tennis at a remotely high level you can clearly see that, but it's not necessary.

Tammo
12-20-2011, 07:33 PM
Tammo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsgvB7ROqrY

Meet Roddick's forehand.

u know what i watched that whole 14mins. and I only saw 5 FH winners and 2 times Rod forced Fed to hit an error. That is pretty pathetic.

Tammo
12-20-2011, 07:35 PM
This makes no sense. Topspin does not equate to winners, especially on grass. There is alot more that goes into why Fed makes Errors off of Nadal's shots, not just topspin. How about the Relentless power and placement Nadal displays for starters.

Roddick hits loads of spin, with no power, that land at the service line, with nowhere near the consistency and depth of Nadal when he is playing well, therefore the same effect is not achieved

Fed doesn't make mistakes because Roddick's shots off his backhand are lame for the most part and consistently land around the service line, and he just doesn't try to hit winners, therefore, players make less forced errors. He hits a slice, which is not even as effective at Federer's, and we already know how their forehands compare.

Roddick does hit with loads of spin, if you play tennis at a remotely high level you can clearly see that, but it's not necessary.

Loads of topspin means the ball will move away faster or kick away form your opponent. I'm trying to prove that by sowhing how many winners each of the hit.

SoBad
12-20-2011, 07:38 PM
Fred is done. Deal with it.

adamX012
12-20-2011, 08:04 PM
Fred is done. Deal with it.

You mean Roger Federer right?

SoBad
12-20-2011, 08:08 PM
You mean Roger Federer right?

Is that what they mean by "RF"?

adamX012
12-20-2011, 08:10 PM
Is that what they mean by "RF"?

Wait a minute, are you trying to pick up a fight, huh?

I just wanted to make sure what's going on in this thread.

Don't get overly sensitive.

SoBad
12-20-2011, 08:19 PM
Wait a minute, are you trying to pick up a fight, huh?

I just wanted to make sure what's going on in this thread.

Don't get overly sensitive.

I am pursuing the same objective, so I don't see the need to get defensive over terminology.

adamX012
12-20-2011, 08:25 PM
I am pursuing the same objective, so I don't see the need to get defensive over terminology.

That sounds great. Have fun!

SoBad
12-20-2011, 08:31 PM
That sounds great. Have fun!

Thanks Adam - I hope you enjoy your tennis debates as well.

tennnnis
12-20-2011, 08:31 PM
Dream on!!!
Fed can't even make semis anymore!!!

SoBad
12-20-2011, 08:33 PM
Dream on!!!
Fed can't even make semis anymore!!!

Oh, but wait - he still wins matches in obscure pre-arranged indoor invitational tournaments and talks big in the press?

kishnabe
12-20-2011, 08:40 PM
Fred is done. Deal with it.

I thought he was done in 2008!

SoBad
12-20-2011, 08:46 PM
I thought he was done in 2008!

You were right.

Cup8489
12-20-2011, 09:26 PM
You were right.

Yeah, the 3 majors he's won since then don't count. got it.

Crazy man
12-20-2011, 10:27 PM
IF Roddick had a huge topspin FH, (a) the ball would force Fed to have more errors (b) Roddick would have more winners. Simple logic for smart people.
Now A-Rod obviously played better in 09' than 04' and people on this forum were saying it was close to the 04' final. Now I found the 09' Wimbledon stats.


Fed Rod
107 74 no. of winners
38 33 no. of errors


Now Fed does have 5 more UE's but it is small enough to show that Roddick didn't force Fed to make mistakes. Now Fed had 33 more winners than Rod. That proves that Rod didn't have tons of topspin.

On a separate note I now am sure that you are 8 years old...

Ok you have clearly never held a racket in your life because everything you've said has been complete nonsense. Firstly, you can clearly see Roddick's FH isn't flat by the way it kicks off the court. Where Roddick hits winners was the sheer brute force power he was able to generate - mechanically Roddick's FH isn't teh norm, and isn't taught by coaches and shouldn't. He hits with a semi western grip, and before contact point on his swing, pronates. Ever heard of the word pronation, idiot?




Roddick would have more winners? I've heard JMDP hits quite flat, Soderling also. I've also heard they hit their fair share of winners. Oh and by the way, the only two guys who get more spin out of the ball are Nadal and Federer (who come in at #1 and #2 respectively). Funny, Roddick hit with more now than he did in 2003, yet doesn't hit 1/10th of the amount of winners he did.




Seriously, now I know why posters on other sections hate the GPPD to no end. It's because we have complete ignorant posters like you running around digging up stats to prove who hits with spin and who doesn't. Why not watch a tennis match and see for yourself. Everyone on this page has completely p!ssed on you.




I don't even know what to say about the sentence in bold. Completely speechless. Fact are facts, you don't play tennis and you don't watch tennis. These are the facts I submit to you.

Tammo
12-21-2011, 06:34 AM
Ok you have clearly never held a racket in your life because everything you've said has been complete nonsense. Firstly, you can clearly see Roddick's FH isn't flat by the way it kicks off the court. Where Roddick hits winners was the sheer brute force power he was able to generate - mechanically Roddick's FH isn't teh norm, and isn't taught by coaches and shouldn't. He hits with a semi western grip, and before contact point on his swing, pronates. Ever heard of the word pronation, idiot?




Roddick would have more winners? I've heard JMDP hits quite flat, Soderling also. I've also heard they hit their fair share of winners. Oh and by the way, the only two guys who get more spin out of the ball are Nadal and Federer (who come in at #1 and #2 respectively). Funny, Roddick hit with more now than he did in 2003, yet doesn't hit 1/10th of the amount of winners he did.




Seriously, now I know why posters on other sections hate the GPPD to no end. It's because we have complete ignorant posters like you running around digging up stats to prove who hits with spin and who doesn't. Why not watch a tennis match and see for yourself. Everyone on this page has completely p!ssed on you.




I don't even know what to say about the sentence in bold. Completely speechless. Fact are facts, you don't play tennis and you don't watch tennis. These are the facts I submit to you.

Ok you are really messed up. First of all I said Roddick never had a flat FH. You responded saying that I was right, but that his FH was with loads of topspin. If that was true then on a grasscourt the ball would kic away from the opponent. Clearly not true cause I watched nearly 15 minutes of Roddick vs Federer 2004 Wimbledon, and Roddick only hit FOUR winners and two times he forced Fed to hit an error. I wouldn't call those good stats but if you say so:confused:.

Secondly I've been playing for eight years and am a 4.0 so I've played my share of matches and know how thw game works.

Achilles82
12-21-2011, 07:22 AM
I would still consider Sampras to be greater...

How is Sampras greater? Are you kidding me?


RF has more GS, more masters titles, more titles overall. He won all 4 grand slams. He won masters tournaments on all surfaces. I mean come on. Sampras was amazing athlete, amazing tennis player, but let's face it. RF is the greatest of all time, period!

kiki
12-21-2011, 03:41 PM
How is Sampras greater? Are you kidding me?


RF has more GS, more masters titles, more titles overall. He won all 4 grand slams. He won masters tournaments on all surfaces. I mean come on. Sampras was amazing athlete, amazing tennis player, but let's face it. RF is the greatest of all time, period!

jajaja, a number 1 that keeps being beaten by his nº 2 (Nadal)???

Povl Carstensen
12-21-2011, 03:48 PM
Well Sampras was beaten by lesser players than no 2.

kiki
12-21-2011, 03:49 PM
Well Sampras was beaten by lesser players than no 2.

Not in major finals, right?

TMF
12-21-2011, 04:03 PM
Not in major finals, right?

It's even worse when losing in the early rounds, just like Laver did during his heyday.

Crazy man
12-21-2011, 04:10 PM
Ok you are really messed up. First of all I said Roddick never had a flat FH. You responded saying that I was right, but that his FH was with loads of topspin. If that was true then on a grasscourt the ball would kic away from the opponent. Clearly not true cause I watched nearly 15 minutes of Roddick vs Federer 2004 Wimbledon, and Roddick only hit FOUR winners and two times he forced Fed to hit an error. I wouldn't call those good stats but if you say so:confused:.

Secondly I've been playing for eight years and am a 4.0 so I've played my share of matches and know how thw game works.

You stated Roddick didn't have tons of topspin. I, and others have already submitted facts yet you choose to ignore them. You're either on drugs or completely oblivious to tennis. You have now earned a one-way ticket to my ignore list. Bye!

Mustard
12-21-2011, 04:12 PM
Not in major finals, right?

Sampras lost 4 major finals out of the 18 that he played in his career:

1992 US Open to Edberg
1995 Australian Open to Agassi
2000 US Open to Safin
2001 US Open to Hewitt

kiki
12-21-2011, 04:13 PM
It's even worse when losing in the early rounds, just like Laver did during his heyday.

That is the funny thing about Rod.He could have 6 beers with his next to be rival, lost to him...and then, crash him in his way to any of his 2 slams.

The funny thing is that Laver could give Federer one of his GS...and then, they would tie at one each.:(

Tammo
12-21-2011, 06:24 PM
You stated Roddick didn't have tons of topspin. I, and others have already submitted facts yet you choose to ignore them. You're either on drugs or completely oblivious to tennis. You have now earned a one-way ticket to my ignore list. Bye!

Lol, TYVM for putting me on ur list that way you won't put idiotic responses up. Ur user name says it all...

TMF
12-22-2011, 10:49 AM
That is the funny thing about Rod.He could have 6 beers with his next to be rival, lost to him...and then, crash him in his way to any of his 2 slams.

The funny thing is that Laver could give Federer one of his GS...and then, they would tie at one each.:(

Fed can give Laver 2 slams and he's still behind Federer.:oops:

And throw in 1 hard court slam for Laver to look good. :)

pame
12-22-2011, 11:01 AM
jajaja, a number 1 that keeps being beaten by his nº 2 (Nadal)???

A number one that kept his no 2 warming the no. 2 position for 3 years :)

merlinpinpin
12-22-2011, 11:07 AM
A number one that kept his no 2 warming the no. 2 position for 3 years :)

But that was good for Rafa. That's a record that surely won't get broken soon, and who else is a contender for GNTOAT (greatest number two of all time)? :lol:

celoft
12-22-2011, 11:24 AM
Sampras lost 4 major finals out of the 18 that he played in his career:

1992 US Open to Edberg
1995 Australian Open to Agassi
2000 US Open to Safin
2001 US Open to Hewitt

Best % of the 10+ slam winners in slam finals.

fed_rulz
12-22-2011, 11:36 AM
Best % of the 10+ slam winners in slam finals.

it's easy to maintain a high % when you don't reach finals (hint hint.. FO). If you remove FO, then Federer's is 15-3 > Pete's 14-4

celoft
12-22-2011, 11:42 AM
it's easy to maintain a high % when you don't reach finals (hint hint.. FO). If you remove FO, then Federer's is 15-3 > Pete's 14-4

+1.

Sampras was mediocre at RG.

............................

aphex
12-22-2011, 11:56 AM
Pete's inability to reach a FO final was one of his greatest achievements.

DjokovicForTheWin
12-22-2011, 12:05 PM
Sampras lost 4 major finals out of the 18 that he played in his career:

1992 US Open to Edberg
1995 Australian Open to Agassi
2000 US Open to Safin
2001 US Open to Hewitt

Isn't Safin part of the 'weak' Federer era? Interesting. I guess this means the entire 90s was a weak era since their leading slam getter gotten beaten by a 2-slam wonder.

Mustard
12-22-2011, 12:37 PM
Isn't Safin part of the 'weak' Federer era? Interesting. I guess this means the entire 90s was a weak era since their leading slam getter gotten beaten by a 2-slam wonder.

I've never called Federer's era "weak".

fed_rulz
12-22-2011, 01:42 PM
Isn't Safin part of the 'weak' Federer era? Interesting. I guess this means the entire 90s was a weak era since their leading slam getter gotten beaten by a 2-slam wonder.

not to mention Hewitt, who many consider to be Federer's b!@tch, and a lucky slam winner.

Mustard
12-22-2011, 01:46 PM
not to mention Hewitt, who many consider to be Federer's b!@tch, and a lucky slam winner.

Such theories are absolutely ridiculous. Firstly, Hewitt once led Federer 7-2 in their head-to-head. Secondly, Hewitt showed amazing mental strength to win the 2001 US Open the way he did, considering how the media were all hating on him accusing him of being racist after that linesman incident during Hewitt's second round match against Blake. Thirdly, Hewitt was only being beaten by the eventual champions in the majors in 2004-2005.

Nathaniel_Near
12-22-2011, 02:22 PM
How is Sampras greater? Are you kidding me?


RF has more GS, more masters titles, more titles overall. He won all 4 grand slams. He won masters tournaments on all surfaces. I mean come on. Sampras was amazing athlete, amazing tennis player, but let's face it. RF is the greatest of all time, period!

This thread is about Wimbledon.

fed_rulz
12-22-2011, 02:30 PM
Such theories are absolutely ridiculous. Firstly, Hewitt once led Federer 7-2 in their head-to-head. Secondly, Hewitt showed amazing mental strength to win the 2001 US Open the way he did, considering how the media were all hating on him accusing him of being racist after that linesman incident during Hewitt's second round match against Blake. Thirdly, Hewitt was only being beaten by the eventual champions in the majors in 2004-2005.

I know - i was trying to point out the stupidity of claims that Federer's era was weak (and I believe so was DFTW).

kiki
12-23-2011, 01:44 PM
Isn't Safin part of the 'weak' Federer era? Interesting. I guess this means the entire 90s was a weak era since their leading slam getter gotten beaten by a 2-slam wonder.

Sampras was an oldie when he lost to Safin...

kiki
12-23-2011, 01:45 PM
Such theories are absolutely ridiculous. Firstly, Hewitt once led Federer 7-2 in their head-to-head. Secondly, Hewitt showed amazing mental strength to win the 2001 US Open the way he did, considering how the media were all hating on him accusing him of being racist after that linesman incident during Hewitt's second round match against Blake. Thirdly, Hewitt was only being beaten by the eventual champions in the majors in 2004-2005.

Great post...when did Fed start dominating hewitt? when he was completely unmotivated

kiki
12-23-2011, 01:48 PM
Fed can give Laver 2 slams and he's still behind Federer.:oops:

And throw in 1 hard court slam for Laver to look good. :)

Yes, he won the SA Open in 1969, the hard court gran slam of that time.

You are so obsessed with Laver and hard courts...do you know he played many wood indoors tournaments when being a pro? Fed would probably never imagine that such a surface would even exist¡¡¡

And Federer never played true indoors..and true grass.So he´s only won GS in 2 surfaces: Hard and Clay , that is, same as Laver.

TMF
12-23-2011, 03:08 PM
Yes, he won the SA Open in 1969, the hard court gran slam of that time.

You are so obsessed with Laver and hard courts...do you know he played many wood indoors tournaments when being a pro? Fed would probably never imagine that such a surface would even exist¡¡¡

And Federer never played true indoors..and true grass.So he´s only won GS in 2 surfaces: Hard and Clay , that is, same as Laver.

Point is...Laver never won a slam on hc.

LOL about true indoors, true grass, it must be all fake, including fake racquet. According to you, tennis in this era must be fake too. (roll eyes).

kiki
12-23-2011, 03:17 PM
Point is...Laver never won a slam on hc.

LOL about true indoors, true grass, it must be all fake, including fake racquet. According to you, tennis in this era must be fake too. (roll eyes).

No, I just said, and all people who watched tennis closely during old time´s grass will agree, old and new grass have nothingn to see, except the green colour.

Laver won indoors ( true fast indoors not that ultraslow YEC thing) and hard court like wins at MSG, Phily ( the greatest indoor tournament ever) and, in hard courts, the SA Open, which was the greatest hard court event for a long time ( till Flushing Meadows was created)

You enjoy denigrating Laver.Fact remains he not only won 1 GS, but 2.And nobody else has done it before or after him.keep waiting.Do you think federer can win 2 GS in the remaining time of his career.Still, if he did, he´d tie with Laver, not beat him...OK, will Fed win 3 GS...LOL

TMF
12-23-2011, 03:31 PM
No, I just said, and all people who watched tennis closely during old time´s grass will agree, old and new grass have nothingn to see, except the green colour.

Well, that's your opinion. New grass or old grass they both have their own challenge.

Laver won indoors ( true fast indoors not that ultraslow YEC thing) and hard court like wins at MSG, Phily ( the greatest indoor tournament ever) and, in hard courts, the SA Open, which was the greatest hard court event for a long time ( till Flushing Meadows was created)
Fed also won on indoors(holds the record for 6 WTF). You say Fed didn't play fast indoor that holds against him, but i can say Laver wouldn't win slow indoors.

You enjoy denigrating Laver.Fact remains he not only won 1 GS, but 2.And nobody else has done it before or after him.keep waiting.Do you think federer can win 2 GS in the remaining time of his career.Still, if he did, he´d tie with Laver, not beat him...OK, will Fed win 3 GS...LOL
Pot calling the kettle black.

You are asking too much for Fed and the rest of today's player because they must conquer 3 different surfaces. Laver's GS is only applicable in his heyday.

tennis_pro
12-23-2011, 03:34 PM
You enjoy denigrating Laver.Fact remains he not only won 1 GS, but 2.And nobody else has done it before or after him.keep waiting.Do you think federer can win 2 GS in the remaining time of his career.Still, if he did, he´d tie with Laver, not beat him...OK, will Fed win 3 GS...LOL

Laver's 1962 slam was a joke. His biggest rivals were competing in the pro circuit at the time.

TMF
12-23-2011, 03:37 PM
Laver's 1962 slam was a joke. His biggest rivals were competing in the pro circuit at the time.

I believe a lot of the top players can win a GS playing the amateur.

kiki
12-23-2011, 03:52 PM
Well, that's your opinion. New grass or old grass they both have their own challenge.


Fed also won on indoors(holds the record for 6 WTF). You say Fed didn't play fast indoor that holds against him, but i can say Laver wouldn't win slow indoors.


Pot calling the kettle black.

You are asking too much for Fed and the rest of today's player because they must conquer 3 different surfaces. Laver's GS is only applicable in his heyday.

So, you finally agree that Laver is the greatest since the current players are " asked too much"

And, in Laver´s pro era, indoors was, by far, the most used surface, so Laver has played indoors like 20 times or 30 what Federer has.Fed would win HC, Laver indoors and old grass, and I am not sure about clay, this would be probably open.

kiki
12-23-2011, 03:53 PM
Laver's 1962 slam was a joke. His biggest rivals were competing in the pro circuit at the time.

Not a certain Roy Emerson, that many compare to Federer.

merlinpinpin
12-24-2011, 12:05 AM
Laver's 1962 slam was a joke. His biggest rivals were competing in the pro circuit at the time.

Actually, Laver himself said his 1962 GS shouldn't be counted, as all the best players were on the pro tour, and he may know something about it... ;)

But then, Laver has class and respects the game and other players, not like his so-called "fans" (some of whom have probably never seen a tennis match in their lives) who post on TT... ;)

kiki
12-24-2011, 02:21 AM
To compare somebody you must have seen him...how many TT have seen Laver live?

tennis_pro
12-24-2011, 04:14 AM
Not only the 1962 slam was a joke, he proved it by entering the pro tour in 1963, a year in which he was owned several times by Rosewall.

Nathaniel_Near
12-24-2011, 04:18 AM
No, I just said, and all people who watched tennis closely during old time´s grass will agree, old and new grass have nothingn to see, except the green colour.

Laver won indoors ( true fast indoors not that ultraslow YEC thing) and hard court like wins at MSG, Phily ( the greatest indoor tournament ever) and, in hard courts, the SA Open, which was the greatest hard court event for a long time ( till Flushing Meadows was created)

You enjoy denigrating Laver.Fact remains he not only won 1 GS, but 2.And nobody else has done it before or after him.keep waiting.Do you think federer can win 2 GS in the remaining time of his career.Still, if he did, he´d tie with Laver, not beat him...OK, will Fed win 3 GS...LOL

I thought Don Budge got one.

tennis_pro
12-24-2011, 04:18 AM
Not a certain Roy Emerson, that many compare to Federer.



That guy who played his entire career in the amateur circuit while the best from the best Laver, Rosewall, Hoad, Gimeno etc played in the pro circuit? I think that was him.

Mustard
12-24-2011, 08:02 AM
That guy who played his entire career in the amateur circuit while the best from the best Laver, Rosewall, Hoad, Gimeno etc played in the pro circuit? I think that was him.

Emerson turned professional in early 1968, soon after Newcombe and Roche had also turned professional. The amateur tennis authorities knew the game was up and that they'd have to make their tournaments open to professionals in order to remain relevant. April 1968, therefore, saw the start of the open era.

helloworld
12-24-2011, 08:10 AM
Emerson turned professional in early 1968, soon after Newcombe and Roche had also turned professional. The amateur tennis authorities knew the game was up and that they'd have to make their tournaments open to professionals in order to remain relevant. April 1968, therefore, saw the start of the open era.

How is this relevant to the discussion? :confused:
Emerson won his slams when he was amateur anyway.

Mustard
12-24-2011, 08:12 AM
How is this relevant to the discussion? :confused:
Emerson won his slams when he was amateur anyway.

Emerson didn't play his "entire career" in the amateurs as tennis pro falsely stated.

helloworld
12-24-2011, 08:17 AM
Emerson didn't play his "entire career" in the amateurs as tennis pro falsely stated.

Yeah, but he was a nobody in the pro circuit. He got absolutely crushed in the pro tour.

Mustard
12-24-2011, 08:22 AM
Yeah, but he was a nobody in the pro circuit. He got absolutely crushed in the pro tour.

Stop exaggerating.

helloworld
12-24-2011, 08:25 AM
Stop exaggerating.

What?? Why don't you stop posting? :twisted:

Mustard
12-24-2011, 08:26 AM
What?? Why don't you stop posting? :twisted:

Because I like to post :evil:

Cup8489
12-24-2011, 08:28 AM
What?? Why don't you stop posting? :twisted:

I think most people would prefer YOU stop posting. at least mustard has good posts 95% of the time, as opposed to 0% of the time for you..

helloworld
12-24-2011, 08:31 AM
I think most people would prefer YOU stop posting. at least mustard has good posts 95% of the time, as opposed to 0% of the time for you..

Did my posts hurt the feelings of you *******? I thought so. ;)

Cup8489
12-24-2011, 08:03 PM
Did my posts hurt the feelings of you *******? I thought so. ;)

i'm not a *******. You're just a moron. Stop projecting your self-hate onto me. At least I have respect for all the top players, not just my head up the arse of a single one.

helloworld
12-24-2011, 09:33 PM
i'm not a *******. You're just a moron. Stop projecting your self-hate onto me. At least I have respect for all the top players, not just my head up the arse of a single one.

Well, your display picture says differently. ;)

tennis_pro
12-25-2011, 04:52 AM
Emerson turned professional in early 1968, soon after Newcombe and Roche had also turned professional. The amateur tennis authorities knew the game was up and that they'd have to make their tournaments open to professionals in order to remain relevant. April 1968, therefore, saw the start of the open era.

didn't know that, you know why Emerson kept playing in the amateurs for so long? I thought he could well go toe to toe with the pros.

timnz
12-25-2011, 11:37 AM
Yeah, but he was a nobody in the pro circuit. He got absolutely crushed in the pro tour.

Not true. He beat a peak laver many times in 1968. (ironically all of his wins were in straight sets too)

Mustard
12-25-2011, 04:30 PM
didn't know that, you know why Emerson kept playing in the amateurs for so long? I thought he could well go toe to toe with the pros.

Good question. I wish I knew why he stayed in the amateurs for so long, but Emerson obviously had his reasons. I do think Emerson is underrated and could have gone toe to toe with the professionals, but his all-time great status is clearly below players like Laver and Rosewall. Once the open era started, Emerson didn't win any more majors. Is this because Emerson was past prime as a player or because he was now facing the top professional players that he wasn't facing when he won his 12 majors?

abmk
12-25-2011, 04:44 PM
didn't know that, you know why Emerson kept playing in the amateurs for so long? I thought he could well go toe to toe with the pros.

Davis Cup. During the pro-amateur split, pros were not allowed to play the Davis Cup

Mustard
12-25-2011, 04:51 PM
Davis Cup. During the pro-amateur split, pros were not allowed to play the Davis Cup

Ah, Davis Cup. Of course.

kiki
12-26-2011, 05:40 AM
I thought Don Budge got one.

I was talking about 2 GS.

kiki
12-26-2011, 05:43 AM
That guy who played his entire career in the amateur circuit while the best from the best Laver, Rosewall, Hoad, Gimeno etc played in the pro circuit? I think that was him.

He beat all the players of his gen.In fact, he decided to remain amateur because of his agreements with the ATF, which allowed him to defend his country in the Davis Cup.And got paid as a pro.

MariaRafael
12-26-2011, 05:56 AM
I would still consider Sampras to be greater...

Can you enlarge on the point?

Federer has a careed great slam, Sampras doesn't. Federer had 3 absolutely domineering years: 2005, 2006, 2007, Sampras never was as dominating as Federer. Federer had the 2nd best season in terms of win/loss ratio after McEnroe. Federer won more slams and masters, etc, etc.

helloworld
12-26-2011, 06:58 AM
Can you enlarge on the point?

Federer has a careed great slam, Sampras doesn't. Federer had 3 absolutely domineering years: 2005, 2006, 2007, Sampras never was as dominating as Federer. Federer had the 2nd best season in terms of win/loss ratio after McEnroe. Federer won more slams and masters, etc, etc.

He meant on grass, not overall career...

kiki
12-26-2011, 07:08 AM
He is tied with Borg for cosnecutive wins...and if he wins another title, he´ll tie Sampras.

timnz
11-07-2012, 09:14 PM
And who exactly besides an old Becker was so tough for Sampras at Wimbledon? Ivanisevic? Henman? Or maybe Martin?

Don't make me laugh.

Becker old? He was 27 in the 1995 final. That's not old in anybody's book. In Jan. 1996 he won the Australian Open remember and pushed Sampras to the very limit in the 1996 Masters. Hence, still very much a force.

Prisoner of Birth
11-07-2012, 10:08 PM
Yup. No doubt about that at all. However, I don't think that will happen. Federer has been falling from grace year after year at Wimbledon. I bet next year he will get hit off the court by someone like Simon.

Hehehehehehehehehehe