PDA

View Full Version : Why Do People Say Sampras is Greater Grass Courter Than Federer


McEnroeisanartist
07-02-2012, 10:50 AM
Why do people say Sampras is the Greatest Grass Court Player of all Time?

Is it simply because he won 7 Wimbledons compared to Federer's 6 Wimbledons? As of today, their record at Wimbledon is identical - 63-7.

I think its clear that Federer dominated Wimbledon in a way that Sampras never did.

Consider, in their first 6 Wimbledons that each man won, Federer lost 8 sets, Sampras lost a whopping 19 sets. Sampras lost sets to such heavyweights as, Neil Borwick, Karsten Braasch, Jared Palmer, Shuzo Matsuoka. The worst player that Federer lost a set to during this run: Mardy Fish.

Federer was pushed to 5 sets only once. Sampras was pushed to 5 sets 4 times. (It is often said that Sampras is much stronger than Federer in 5 set matches, but one wonders, why Sampras was so weak he even needed to play so many 5 set matches).

Federer had 6 bagels and 11 breadsticks during this run.
Sampras had 1 bagel and 12 breadsticks durnig this run.

ChrisCrocker
07-02-2012, 10:55 AM
Federer was pushed to 5 sets only once. Sampras was pushed to 5 sets 4 times. (It is often said that Sampras is much stronger than Federer in 5 set matches, but one wonders, why Sampras was so weak he even needed to play so many 5 set matches).

lol such a troll

conditions back then were much different, grass was faster, that's a fact. Technology is different that's a fact.

Back then someone running hot was much more dangerous.

And your 5 set thing is hilarious

Devilito
07-02-2012, 11:01 AM
Petros played against a stacked field of fast court players. Federer played against a field of clay courters. Your stats suck

merwy
07-02-2012, 11:02 AM
Who cares.. it's so hard to compare who is "the better grasscourt player". So many different stats you can use: Who has the most wimbledon? Who has the most grass titels? Who has lost the least sets in wimbledon? Longest winning streak on grass?

All of it just seems so pointless: Who is the best grass court player ever? The best clay court player ever? Is Federer the 2nd best clay court player? Would Sampras beat Nadal on hardcourt? Would McEnroe beat Nadal on grass? Would Rod Laver rank within the top 10 if he played now?

I'm getting so tired of these questions

McEnroeisanartist
07-02-2012, 11:09 AM
lol such a troll

conditions back then were much different, grass was faster, that's a fact. Technology is different that's a fact.

Back then someone running hot was much more dangerous.

And your 5 set thing is hilarious

I ll admit I am a troll. Grass was faster back then. We saw with Nadal's loss that a player can still run hot, but Federer somehow managed to avoid this.

Its true about the 5 sets, how many 5 set matches that Sampras played. It really shows his weakness as a player, not his mental touchness, grit, blah blah.

jackson vile
07-02-2012, 11:10 AM
Federer never won Wim. on real grass, it was slowed down and balls changed starting 2001.

Why do people say Sampras is the Greatest Grass Court Player of all Time?

Is it simply because he won 7 Wimbledons compared to Federer's 6 Wimbledons? As of today, their record at Wimbledon is identical - 63-7.

I think its clear that Federer dominated Wimbledon in a way that Sampras never did.

Consider, in their first 6 Wimbledons that each man won, Federer lost 8 sets, Sampras lost a whopping 19 sets. Sampras lost sets to such heavyweights as, Neil Borwick, Karsten Braasch, Jared Palmer, Shuzo Matsuoka. The worst player that Federer lost a set to during this run: Mardy Fish.

Federer was pushed to 5 sets only once. Sampras was pushed to 5 sets 4 times. (It is often said that Sampras is much stronger than Federer in 5 set matches, but one wonders, why Sampras was so weak he even needed to play so many 5 set matches).

Federer had 6 bagels and 11 breadsticks during this run.
Sampras had 1 bagel and 12 breadsticks durnig this run.

Mustard
07-02-2012, 11:12 AM
Here are their whole Wimbledon records, so people can judge for themselves:

Pete Sampras
1989 Wimbledon
R128: Todd Woodbridge def. Pete Sampras (7-5, 7-6, 5-7, 6-3)

1990 Wimbledon
R128: Christo Van Rensburg def. Pete Sampras (7-6, 7-5, 7-6)

1991 Wimbledon
R128: Pete Sampras def. Danilo Marcelino (6-1, 6-2, 6-2)
R64: Derrick Rostagno def. Pete Sampras (6-4, 3-6, 7-6, 6-4)

1992 Wimbledon
R128: Pete Sampras def. Andrei Cherkasov (6-1, 6-3, 6-3)
R64: Pete Sampras def. Todd Woodbridge (7-6, 7-6, 6-7, 6-4)
R32: Pete Sampras def. Scott Davis (6-1, 6-0, 6-2)
R16: Pete Sampras def. Arnaud Boetsch (6-3, 7-5, 7-6)
QF: Pete Sampras def. Michael Stich (6-3, 6-2, 6-4)
SF: Goran Ivanisevic def. Pete Sampras (6-7, 7-6, 6-4, 6-2)

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)

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)

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)

1996 Wimbledon
R128: Pete Sampras def. Richey Reneberg (4-6, 6-4, 6-3, 6-3)
R64: Pete Sampras def. Mark Philippoussis (7-6, 6-4, 6-4)
R32: Pete Sampras def. Karol Kucera (6-4, 6-1, 6-7, 7-6)
R16: Pete Sampras def. Cedric Pioline (6-4, 6-4, 6-2)
QF: Richard Krajicek def. Pete Sampras (7-5, 7-6, 6-4)

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)

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)

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)

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)

2001 Wimbledon
R128: Pete Sampras def. Francisco Clavet (6-4, 7-6, 6-4)
R64: Pete Sampras def. Barry Cowan (6-3, 6-2, 6-7, 4-6, 6-3)
R32: Pete Sampras def. Sargis Sargsian (6-4, 6-4, 7-5)
R16: Roger Federer def. Pete Sampras (7-6, 5-7, 6-4, 6-7, 7-5)

2002 Wimbledon
R128: Pete Sampras def. Martin Lee (6-3, 7-6, 6-3)
R64: George Bastl def. Pete Sampras (6-3, 6-2, 4-6, 3-6, 6-4)


Roger Federer
1999 Wimbledon
R128: Jiri Novak def. Roger Federer (6-3, 3-6, 4-6, 6-3, 6-4)

2000 Wimbledon
R128: Yevgeny Kafelnikov def. Roger Federer (7-5, 7-5, 7-6)

2001 Wimbledon
R128: Roger Federer def. Christophe Rochus (6-2, 6-3, 6-2)
R64: Roger Federer def. Xavier Malisse (6-3, 7-5, 3-6, 4-6, 6-3)
R32: Roger Federer def. Jonas Bjorkman (7-6, 6-3, 7-6)
R16: Roger Federer def. Pete Sampras (7-6, 5-7, 6-4, 6-7, 7-5)
QF: Tim Henman def. Roger Federer (7-5, 7-6, 2-6, 7-6)

2002 Wimbledon
R128: Mario Ancic def. Roger Federer (6-3, 7-6, 6-3)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

2008 Wimbledon
R128: Roger Federer def. Dominik Hrbaty (6-3, 6-2, 6-2)
R64: Roger Federer def. Robin Soderling (6-3, 6-4, 7-6)
R32: Roger Federer def. Marc Gicquel (6-3, 6-3, 6-1)
R16: Roger Federer def. Lleyton Hewitt (7-6, 6-2, 6-4)
QF: Roger Federer def. Mario Ancic (6-1, 7-5, 6-4)
SF: Roger Federer def. Marat Safin (6-3, 7-6, 6-4)
FR: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (6-4, 6-4, 6-7, 6-7, 9-7)

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)

2010 Wimbledon
R128: Roger Federer def. Alejandro Falla (5-7, 4-6, 6-4, 7-6, 6-0)
R64: Roger Federer def. Ilija Bozoljac (6-3, 6-7, 6-4, 7-6)
R32: Roger Federer def. Arnaud Clement (6-2, 6-4, 6-2)
R16: Roger Federer def. Jurgen Melzer (6-3, 6-2, 6-3)
QF: Tomas Berdych def. Roger Federer (6-4, 3-6, 6-1, 6-4)

2011 Wimbledon
R128: Roger Federer def. Mikhail Kukushkin (7-6, 6-4, 6-2)
R64: Roger Federer def. Adrian Mannarino (6-2, 6-3, 6-2)
R32: Roger Federer def. David Nalbandian (6-4, 6-2, 6-4)
R16: Roger Federer def. Mikhail Youzhny (6-7, 6-3, 6-3, 6-3)
QF: Jo-Wilfried Tsonga def. Roger Federer (3-6, 6-7, 6-4, 6-4, 6-4)

2012 Wimbledon
R128: Roger Federer def. Albert Ramos (6-1, 6-1, 6-1)
R64: Roger Federer def. Fabio Fognini (6-1, 6-3, 6-2)
R32: Roger Federer def. Julien Benneteau (4-6, 6-7, 6-2, 7-6, 6-1)
R16: Roger Federer def. Xavier Malisse (7-6, 6-1, 4-6, 6-3)
QF: Roger Federer vs. Mikhail Youzhny

TigerTim
07-02-2012, 11:20 AM
Why do people say Sampras is the Greatest Grass Court Player of all Time?

Is it simply because he won 7 Wimbledons compared to Federer's 6 Wimbledons? As of today, their record at Wimbledon is identical - 63-7.

I think its clear that Federer dominated Wimbledon in a way that Sampras never did.

Consider, in their first 6 Wimbledons that each man won, Federer lost 8 sets, Sampras lost a whopping 19 sets. Sampras lost sets to such heavyweights as, Neil Borwick, Karsten Braasch, Jared Palmer, Shuzo Matsuoka. The worst player that Federer lost a set to during this run: Mardy Fish.

Federer was pushed to 5 sets only once. Sampras was pushed to 5 sets 4 times. (It is often said that Sampras is much stronger than Federer in 5 set matches, but one wonders, why Sampras was so weak he even needed to play so many 5 set matches).

Federer had 6 bagels and 11 breadsticks during this run.
Sampras had 1 bagel and 12 breadsticks durnig this run.

wow you are dumb. I'm not even going to bother wasting more words as they will not penetrate you skull.

90's Clay
07-02-2012, 11:21 AM
One more wimbeldon title then Federer.. Played a MUCH stronger grass field then Federer as well. Peak for Peak a higher level then Federer at wimbledon etc..


I give Fed the age over Pete on hard courts (slower ones at least) and clay.. While I give Pete the edge indoors, grass, and slight edge on faster hard courts.

Pete rules grass though.. The best to ever step on the lawns of wimbledon

TMF
07-02-2012, 11:22 AM
Here are their whole Wimbledon records, so people can judge for themselves:
...

From your list, JennyS also came up with the stats that Fed met more and beat more top 10 players than Sampras.

Rabbit
07-02-2012, 11:23 AM
I ll admit I am a troll. Grass was faster back then. We saw with Nadal's loss that a player can still run hot, but Federer somehow managed to avoid this.

Its true about the 5 sets, how many 5 set matches that Sampras played. It really shows his weakness as a player, not his mental touchness, grit, blah blah.

What exactly is the golden standard for mental 'touchness'?

TigerTim
07-02-2012, 11:30 AM
Why Sampras is a better grass player than JesusFed

-Depth of Field; Sampras had to deal with Agassi, Goran, Becker, Rafter, The Dutch Bloke and a host of solid grass courters. Federer had Roddick. Then Nadal who was affectively a clay courter untill 2007 and beat him soon after that.

-Type of Grass; The grass was real, not fake clay

-You mention "dominance", sets won, games lost etc. It is much harder to break on the fast grass of the 90s than in Federer's post '01 era hence why Pete won fewer games, look at how Rafa lost 40 odd games at RG in 2008 and Roger's best was 65 games in 06(?) and Wimby, slower = easy to break.

-Federer was taken to 5 by Rodduck and Nadal (at his 07 peak), surely he should have done better if he was so good

TMF
07-02-2012, 11:32 AM
So far, a poll from The Tennis Channel has the following players with the most vote:


Who is the best grass court male player of the open era?

1. Federer (62.86%)
2. Sampras (25.2%)
3. McEnroe (6.83%)
4. Borg (3.78%)
5. Becker (1.02%)
6. Other (0.31%)

http://www.tennischannel.com/

TigerTim
07-02-2012, 11:34 AM
So far, a poll from The Tennis Channel has the following players with the most vote:


Who is the best grass court male player of the open era?

1. Federer (62.86%)
2. Sampras (25.2%)
3. McEnroe (6.83%)
4. Borg (3.78%)
5. Becker (1.02%)
6. Other (0.31%)

http://www.tennischannel.com/

What???!!!! Borg with half the votes of McEnroe - :shock:

Swissv2
07-02-2012, 11:35 AM
lol such a troll

conditions back then were much different, grass was faster, that's a fact. Technology is different that's a fact.

Back then someone running hot was much more dangerous.

And your 5 set thing is hilarious

ROFL.

Show your proof that "someone running hot was much more dangerous" back then compared to now.

Mustard
07-02-2012, 11:37 AM
So far, a poll from The Tennis Channel has the following players with the most vote:


Who is the best grass court male player of the open era?

1. Federer (62.86%)
2. Sampras (25.2%)
3. McEnroe (6.83%)
4. Borg (3.78%)
5. Becker (1.02%)
6. Other (0.31%)

http://www.tennischannel.com/

That poll has no credibility because it's massively biased in favour of contemporary players. Not because they are better, but because they are more high profile.

TMF
07-02-2012, 11:37 AM
Funny how Fed detractors wants to relate clay is the same as grass when Roddick has 3 W finals but a journeymen on clay; Fed has 6 W to 1 FO; Nadal has 6 FO to 2 W....

Grass plays the same as clay. Sure it does.:rolleyes:

Mustard
07-02-2012, 11:41 AM
Grass and clay are nothing alike. All this "fake clay" stuff is ridiculous.

TheTennisFanatic
07-02-2012, 11:42 AM
Why Sampras is a better grass player than JesusFed

-Depth of Field; Sampras had to deal with Agassi, Goran, Becker, Rafter, The Dutch Bloke and a host of solid grass courters. Federer had Roddick. Then Nadal who was affectively a clay courter untill 2007 and beat him soon after that.

-Type of Grass; The grass was real, not fake clay

-You mention "dominance", sets won, games lost etc. It is much harder to break on the fast grass of the 90s than in Federer's post '01 era hence why Pete won fewer games, look at how Rafa lost 40 odd games at RG in 2008 and Roger's best was 65 games in 06(?) and Wimby, slower = easy to break.

-Federer was taken to 5 by Rodduck and Nadal (at his 07 peak), surely he should have done better if he was so good
Hmm I remember seeing some stats which suggested that breaking the serve has actually been tougher since 2001. Can some one come up with the actual stats?

TMF
07-02-2012, 11:45 AM
That poll has no credibility because it's massively biased in favour of contemporary players. Not because they're better, but because they are more high profile.

That's your perspective. It's not necessary true because notice fans from the former player talk forum are quite the opposite.

Any tennis fan from young, middel age to old can visit The Tennis Channel so there's nothing you can say that it was a "massive" biased.

merlinpinpin
07-02-2012, 11:46 AM
Why Sampras is a better grass player than JesusFed

-Depth of Field; Sampras had to deal with Agassi, Goran, Becker, Rafter, The Dutch Bloke and a host of solid grass courters. Federer had Roddick. Then Nadal who was affectively a clay courter untill 2007 and beat him soon after that.

Actually, no. Sampras *didn't* have to deal with "The Dutch Bloke", otherwise his record at Wimbledon would be much worse than it is. He faced him only once at SW19, in the middle of his streak here, and failed to win a single set. A consistent Krajicek would probably have destroyed Sampras' legacy something good, had they met at Wimby and the USO as many times as Federer met Nadal or Djokovic there.

So, you might say that Sampras is a better grass player than Federer because he *almost never* had to face on grass The Dutch Bloke who owned him just about anywhere... :roll:

THUNDERVOLLEY
07-02-2012, 11:53 AM
As of today, their record at Wimbledon is identical - 63-7.

One has 7 titles, the other 6....not identical.

kragster
07-02-2012, 11:58 AM
That's your perspective. It's not necessary true because notice fans from the former player talk forum are quite the opposite.

Any tennis fan from young, middel age to old can visit The Tennis Channel so there's nothing you can say that it was a "massive" biased.

Younger people are more internet savvy than older people. Unless there is data to confirm that the tennis channel poll sample had an equal distribution of all ages and countries, the poll will likely be biased.

I can understand Fed beating Sampras in this poll by a few points. But by such a huge margin just speaks to some bias in the way the poll was conducted.

tennis_pro
07-02-2012, 11:58 AM
Why Sampras is a better grass player than JesusFed

-Depth of Field; Sampras had to deal with Agassi, Goran, Becker, Rafter, The Dutch Bloke and a host of solid grass courters. Federer had Roddick. Then Nadal who was affectively a clay courter untill 2007 and beat him soon after that.

Oh the numerous times Sampras had to play Krajicek or Rafter at Wimbledon:) Saying that Sampras had to deal with Rafter is like saying Federer had hard competition on clay because of Kuerten.

And of course at the same time you fail to point out how good Hewitt was on grass a few years back to challenge Federer.

-Type of Grass; The grass was real, not fake clay

Which made the entire field compete on it rather than a bunch of grass courters.

-Federer was taken to 5 by Rodduck and Nadal (at his 07 peak), surely he should have done better if he was so good

Yea far worse than peak Sampras being owned in straight sets by Krajicek or Sampras losing to a lucky loser. I don't even even bother to check all the matches where Sampras was pushed hard by mugs at Wimbledon in his peak years.

TMF
07-02-2012, 11:59 AM
One has 7 titles, the other 6....not identical.

Is it simply because he won 7 Wimbledons compared to Federer's 6 Wimbledons? As of today, their record at Wimbledon is identical - 63-7.






???????????????????????????

He didn't say 7 is identical to 6, but their win/loss record is identical.

THUNDERVOLLEY
07-02-2012, 11:59 AM
That poll has no credibility because it's massively biased in favour of contemporary players. Not because they are better, but because they are more high profile.

Exactly. That poll is no more valid than than a MTV board claming Beiber is the greatest music star of all time. In other words, trivial and lightweight.

merlinpinpin
07-02-2012, 12:10 PM
Younger people are more internet savvy than older people. Unless there is data to confirm that the tennis channel poll sample had an equal distribution of all ages and countries, the poll will likely be biased.

I can understand Fed beating Sampras in this poll by a few points. But by such a huge margin just speaks to some bias in the way the poll was conducted.

Agree with that, the margin is just too big. ;)

NamRanger
07-02-2012, 12:26 PM
Grass and clay are nothing alike. All this "fake clay" stuff is ridiculous.



That being said they are tremendously more similar than they used to be, especially the grass in the second week. The grass plays more like a medium/slow hardcourt in the 2nd week, mainly due to the fact that the compacting of the soil along with a few other factors has lead to much higher bounces.



Sampras is considered better because he won on the traditional grass that most of us know, and most people have known for literally a hundred years or so, and had to go through a few stacked fields against his favor. Federer in the meanwhile had Hewitt for two years, Roddick, and Nadal. There's literally no other competition Federer faced, and it's not because he couldn't be beat on grass, Roddick came close two years, Hewitt gave him alot of trouble in the QF in 2004, and Nadal took him out in 2008 when Federer was in pretty good form.

tudwell
07-02-2012, 12:28 PM
If Federer wins this year, you gotta give him the edge. He'll have a better record at Wimbledon with

7 wins
8 finals
8 SFs
11 QFs

Compared to Sampras' record of

7 wins
7 finals
8 SFs
9 QFs

jackson vile
07-02-2012, 12:36 PM
You can't give him the edge for winning on fake grass courts now can you?

If Federer wins this year, you gotta give him the edge. He'll have a better record at Wimbledon with

7 wins
8 finals
8 SFs
11 QFs

Compared to Sampras' record of

7 wins
7 finals
8 SFs
9 QFs

tudwell
07-02-2012, 12:38 PM
You can't give him the edge for winning on fake grass courts now can you?

So all Wimbledon wins from 2002 onward are invalid? Nadal isn't a great grass-courter?

Besides, Federer stopped Sampras' bid for five in a row on the old grass by playing serve-and-volley tennis. He can do it all and would've had success in an era with faster grass too.

NamRanger
07-02-2012, 12:40 PM
So all Wimbledon wins from 2002 onward are invalid? Nadal isn't a great grass-courter?

Besides, Federer stopped Sampras' bid for five in a row on the old grass by playing serve-and-volley tennis. He can do it all and would've had success in an era with faster grass too.



Yeah that overrated allcourt game that nearly got him in huge trouble vs Julian Benneteau. He bricked so many easy volleys it was hilarious.

woodrow1029
07-02-2012, 12:47 PM
Another classic thread. LOL.


Funny how Fed detractors wants to relate clay is the same as grass when Roddick has 3 W finals but a journeymen on clay; Fed has 6 W to 1 FO; Nadal has 6 FO to 2 W....

Grass plays the same as clay. Sure it does.:rolleyes:

Which one did you sleep through? He has 7 FO.

woodrow1029
07-02-2012, 12:49 PM
Federer never won Wim. on real grass, it was slowed down and balls changed starting 2001.

You can't give him the edge for winning on fake grass courts now can you?

Is it possible for you to get through a thread without posting nonsense, let alone twice in the same thread with the same nonsense?

GodNovak
07-02-2012, 12:56 PM
Because they know tennis.

NadalAgassi
07-02-2012, 01:09 PM
More Wimbledons on much tougher grass in a much tougher grass court era. The end. There is nothing to discuss. If by some miracle Federer reaches 8 Wimbledons, lets revive the thread.

tudwell
07-02-2012, 01:19 PM
Yeah that overrated allcourt game that nearly got him in huge trouble vs Julian Benneteau. He bricked so many easy volleys it was hilarious.

Everyone has a bad day at the office. It's not like Sampras never bricked easy volleys in his career.

Sid_Vicious
07-02-2012, 02:30 PM
Everyone has a bad day at the office. It's not like Sampras never bricked easy volleys in his career.

Not that I disagree with Namranger when he claims that Federer is more of baseliner than an all-courter, but you are right in saying Federer had a bad day. Today, Federer played great at net today! 34/39 at the net. Sweet stuff.

THUNDERVOLLEY
07-02-2012, 02:35 PM
More Wimbledons on much tougher grass in a much tougher grass court era. The end. There is nothing to discuss. If by some miracle Federer reaches 8 Wimbledons, lets revive the thread.

Nahhh...they can't do that. To this frightened little group, they have to micromanage Federer's history in order to give him a "best" title somewhere, since it was clear he was never ging to be the GOAT with no Grand Slam on his list. Without the Grand Slam, they need to point to single events--and even as of this date, they cannot crown him some sort of grass king without going to w/l records, because they know a straightforward assessment leaves Sampras ahead for the most important reason.

NadalAgassi
07-02-2012, 03:14 PM
Nahhh...they can't do that. To this frightened little group, they have to micromanage Federer's history in order to give him a "best" title somewhere, since it was clear he was never ging to be the GOAT with no Grand Slam on his list. Without the Grand Slam, they need to point to single events--and even as of this date, they cannot crown him some sort of grass king without going to w/l records, because they know a straightforward assessment leaves Sampras ahead for the most important reason.

He is probably the best overall hard court player ever. Most everyone would love their favorite to be best ever on anything, so hey should just settle for that, rather than trying to invent ways to make him the best all around, grass, carpet, indoor, clay, bubble gum, and water surfing player ever.

5263
07-02-2012, 03:32 PM
Wasn't it a young Fed who broke Pete's Wimby streak on their only meeting on grass?

Pete was still in near prime form with 3 more US Open finals still in him and Fed was not yet developed into the player he would become.
Head to head, Pete always had a server's chance to beat anyone on any service, but take his awesome serve away and give him just a good one like Fed or Agassi and Fed never makes a Semi.
Stroke for stroke and movement... It all Fed except the serve, where Pete has a nice edge.
-from a Sampras Fan

Timbo's hopeless slice
07-02-2012, 03:38 PM
^^^^^ +1

Never seen a player like Federer in all my long days..

There was a CC BH near the end of the first set against Malisse that I don't think anyone else could have hit, just ludicrous.

mcenroefan
07-02-2012, 03:41 PM
In the Sampras era and going back to the Borg-Mac-Connors era (with Lendl and all of the other greats included), the surfaces were much different than today. Just as importantly, there were far more "specialists". This produced all sorts of challenges that don't necessarily exist today.

1. e.g., grass was super fast, low bouncing, and slick----Thus, the chance for an upset by a big hitter was far greater at Wimby in those days. Wimby was a bit more of a minefield than it is today.
2. The specialists probably made it a bit tougher at the French and Wimby..maybe even the USO (the AO was largely irrelevant for a couple of decades--at least compared to what it is today).

Anyway, there is no GOAT (of grass, clay, or otherwise) b/c it is nigh impossible to compare eras. I do think that the above factors, though hardly comprehensive, add to the special nature of what Borg accomplished.

The reason I love Fed is for the beauty with which he plays the game....again, in my subjective opinion. I can't say whether he would have dominated Borg, Mac, Laver, etc. nor do I care. I can, however, say the following: to my eye, he plays the most creative, graceful and beautiful tennis that I have ever seen. Truthfully, I've never seen any athlete in any sport move in the way that Fed skates about the court.

Nole's game also has grown on me quite a bit for far different reasons. Some of those gumby positions he manages are quite amazing and I think he has incredible ability as an offensive machine (though he too often plays conservatively for my liking). When he opens up though, he is marvelous. I think those who believe that his ROS against Fed in last year's USO semi was "lucky," are missing something in Nole. He really is that gifted.....that ROS winner on match point was not pure luck.

NadalAgassi
07-02-2012, 03:43 PM
Pete was still in near prime form

LOL NO.


take his awesome serve away

Take away Federer's forehand and how many slams does he win? 1 or 2. Take away Nadal's movement and how many does he win. You really want to go there.


-from a Sampras Fan

and Ugly Betty is the next Miss Universe.

Dedans Penthouse
07-02-2012, 04:09 PM
Why do people say Sampras is the Greatest Grass Court Player of all Time?
Because he is, fanboyyyy




Sampras had 1 bagel and 12 breadsticks durnig this run.'Bagels' .... 'breadsticks' .... whoa, that's cool bro' ...





I ll admit I am a troll.
Its true about the 5 sets, how many 5 set matches that Sampras played.

It really shows his weakness as a player, not his mental touchness, grit, blah blah.
This really shows your mental ******ation, fanbooyy


Sent from my balls to your face using Tapatalk 2

ThePro101
07-02-2012, 04:44 PM
Compared to Sampras' record of

7 wins
7 finals
8 SFs
9 QFs

Whoa - 100% Final record -- very impressive!

Bobby Jr
07-02-2012, 05:28 PM
Why Sampras is a better grass player than JesusFed

-Depth of Field; Sampras had to deal with Agassi, Goran, Becker, Rafter, The Dutch Bloke and a host of solid grass courters. Federer had Roddick. Then Nadal who was affectively a clay courter untill 2007 and beat him soon after that.
Um... those names may look impressive but Sampras didn't play those guys often at Wimbledon at all.

He played Becker 3 times in 14 attempts at Wimbledon. The last was against an over the hill Becker. He played Agassi only twice and Henman once.

Six matches aren't exactly a huge roadblock in the 70 matches he played there. Point being: he may have the more impressive number of titles but to make out like he was playing greats often at Wimbledon is a little misleading. He had cakewalk runs many times - if only based on the then form of opponents who look historically to be strong. (or, some will argue, he just smashed them off the court)

SB
07-02-2012, 07:14 PM
Sampras loafed his way through most return games. He was so confident in his serve, he only broke when it was necessary or convenient. So comparing games lost or even sets lost doesn't really mean anything. He was trying to win matches, not the highest number of games.

Limpinhitter
07-02-2012, 07:17 PM
Why do people say Sampras is the Greatest Grass Court Player of all Time?

* * *

3 reasons: (1) first serve, (2) second serve, and (3) net game.

Limpinhitter
07-02-2012, 07:22 PM
Wasn't it a young Fed who broke Pete's Wimby streak on their only meeting on grass?

Pete was still in near prime form with 3 more US Open finals still in him and Fed was not yet developed into the player he would become.
Head to head, Pete always had a server's chance to beat anyone on any service, but take his awesome serve away and give him just a good one like Fed or Agassi and Fed never makes a Semi.
Stroke for stroke and movement... It all Fed except the serve, where Pete has a nice edge.
-from a Sampras Fan

In addition to a better first and second serve, Sampras was a better volleyer and a much better net player. He was also physically stronger, faster, and more explosive. And, although Federer's forehand is better, Sampras' forehand was his second best shot, and one of the best of all time, IMO. BTW, how many majors do you think Federer would have with Sampras' forehand?

Larrysümmers
07-02-2012, 07:26 PM
i think he and fed are = great on grass

Prisoner of Birth
01-01-2013, 03:40 AM
One has 7 titles, the other 6....not identical.

What about now? :twisted:

valiant
01-01-2013, 03:55 AM
What about now? :twisted:

Next Option : No Real Grass.

helloworld
01-01-2013, 04:01 AM
What about now? :twisted:

Sampras is still the greatest on grass. In the 90s, grass competition was the most competitive with Becker, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Stich, Agassi, Henman, Rafter, etc. all playing to win Wimbledon. In the Federer era, only Roddick challenged him and later on the clay courter Nadal challenged and beat him. Losing a Wimbledon final to a clay courter certainly does not put you in the GOAT category on grass.

SLD76
01-01-2013, 04:30 AM
Sampras is still the greatest on grass. In the 90s, grass competition was the most competitive with Becker, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Stich, Agassi, Henman, Rafter, etc. all playing to win Wimbledon. In the Federer era, only Roddick challenged him and later on the clay courter Nadal challenged and beat him. Losing a Wimbledon final to a clay courter certainly does not put you in the GOAT category on grass.

see the post above where it was pointed out that even though those guys were in the field, Pete did not face them year in year out to win WB.

meanwhile Fed almost always met a top 5 guy in the WB semi/final.

hewitt, roddick, djoker, murray, nadal

people knock fed for his final against phillipousis.

didnt sampras play pioline in a WB final?

pringles
01-01-2013, 04:54 AM
One more wimbeldon title then Federer.. Played a MUCH stronger grass field then Federer as well. Peak for Peak a higher level then Federer at wimbledon etc..


I give Fed the age over Pete on hard courts (slower ones at least) and clay.. While I give Pete the edge indoors, grass, and slight edge on faster hard courts.

Pete rules grass though.. The best to ever step on the lawns of wimbledon

Until he met Federer that is.

helloworld
01-01-2013, 04:56 AM
see the post above where it was pointed out that even though those guys were in the field, Pete did not face them year in year out to win WB.

meanwhile Fed almost always met a top 5 guy in the WB semi/final.

hewitt, roddick, djoker, murray, nadal

people knock fed for his final against phillipousis.

didnt sampras play pioline in a WB final?

You forgot to add Berdych and Tsonga. ;) Becker alone is already better on grass than all the guys you mentioned. Nadal? Rosol? :lol: Roddick? Gimme a break! :lol:

Tennis_Monk
01-01-2013, 05:05 AM
I will keep it simple. It is impossible to stop people from thinking and saying whatever they want to ....regardless of facts.

My own opinion is that Sampras fans are looking for something to hold on to as Roger petty much took care of most things Sampras used to own (# of slams, # of days at number 1, etc).

It is fact of life. Records are there to be broken. Roger broke Sampras's and Some day (could be in 15 yrs or a 100 yrs) Roger's records will be broken too.

pringles
01-01-2013, 05:14 AM
Why Sampras is a better grass player than JesusFed

-Depth of Field; Sampras had to deal with Agassi, Goran, Becker, Rafter, The Dutch Bloke and a host of solid grass courters. Federer had Roddick. Then Nadal who was affectively a clay courter untill 2007 and beat him soon after that.

The only real great grass courters that Sampras could face in his career were Edberg and Becker, Edberg was a non-factor after 1993 (and a pity cause he owned Sampras on both occasions in slams they played, also they never played on grass) while Becker, still a good grass courter, wasn't close to his peak years of 1988-1991 at the time of his meetings with Sampras at Wimbledon in 93/95/97.

Ivanisevic wasn't any better than Roddick. Both had the game (and a similar game nonetheless) and both choked A LOT (Ivanisevic in 1998, Roddick in 2009 or 2004)

He also played Philippoussis, someone you deliberately ommited because he was a part of the Sampras era (and owned peak Sampras on a few occasions - including 1996AO and 1999 Wimbledon before he got injured in the latter). Not to mention Hewitt you also omitted when Federer played him 3 times at Wimbledon.

Hilarious how Petetar**s mention Rafter as one of Sampras' main rivals at Wimbledon when they played a total of 1 time there, the 2000 Wimbledon final where Rafter had to choke the match away to give Sampras a chance to shine one last time. Federer played Djokovic and Murray at Wimbledon but of course you would never mention them, would you (since they played only once there)? Haha, talk about being biased.

-Type of Grass; The grass was real, not fake clay

The grass was faster meant nothing more, nothing less than it was
a) easier to hold
b) harder to break

You can switch the 2 now when talking about the current grass:
a) easier to break
b) harder to hold

-You mention "dominance", sets won, games lost etc. It is much harder to break on the fast grass of the 90s than in Federer's post '01 era hence why Pete won fewer games, look at how Rafa lost 40 odd games at RG in 2008 and Roger's best was 65 games in 06(?) and Wimby, slower = easy to break.

It was harder to break but Sampras has NO EXCUSE for losing sets at Wimbledon to complete mugs (I won't even bother to check now) while Federer lost an odd set or 2 in a tournament to solid players.

-Federer was taken to 5 by Rodduck and Nadal (at his 07 peak), surely he should have done better if he was so good

While Sampras was taken to 5 by Ivanisevic (1995 and 1998), Agassi (1993) with a wrist injury, Korda (1997), Barry freaking Cowan (2001), baby Federer (2001) and George freaking Bastl (2002) - a match he lost btw.

I thought prime Sampras on grass could only be pushed to 5 sets by God himself?

merlinpinpin
01-01-2013, 05:15 AM
You forgot to add Berdych and Tsonga. ;) Becker alone is already better on grass than all the guys you mentioned. Nadal? Rosol? :lol: Roddick? Gimme a break! :lol:

Agree to an extent. Becker was a great Wimbledon player--from 1985 to 1991. (I might actually be overly generous to him in adding 1991, as the way Stich dismantled him in the final was the beginning of the end for him. As he said after the match: "I feel old today.") After that, he lost a step (and some power) and great servers like Sampras and Ivanisevic just routined him when they met him on grass.

So, yes, Becker was a huge threat on grass--*before* Sampras burst upon the scene. Pete beat him for the first time at Wimbledon *eight years* after his first title, which is like an eternity in tennis. (Coincidentally, Federer beat Sampras eight years after Pete's first Wimby title, so his fans should really make up their minds here--either Sampras was still fully fit and at the height of his prowess, which means that Federer also had a seven-time Wimbledon champion as one of his (main) rivals on grass, or Becker was a past-his-prime, washed-up old mug and the matches he played against Sampras shouldn't be mentioned to try and hype up the American.)

So, which is it? :)

SLD76
01-01-2013, 05:16 AM
You forgot to add Berdych and Tsonga. ;) Becker alone is already better on grass than all the guys you mentioned. Nadal? Rosol? :lol: Roddick? Gimme a break! :lol:

and yet becker was owned by agassi who was at least owned by fed and nadal.

pringles
01-01-2013, 05:18 AM
In addition to a better first and second serve, Sampras was a better volleyer and a much better net player. He was also physically stronger, faster, and more explosive. And, although Federer's forehand is better, Sampras' forehand was his second best shot, and one of the best of all time, IMO. BTW, how many majors do you think Federer would have with Sampras' forehand?

While Federer had 10x the backhand Sampras ever had, better movement, better footwork, anticipation, defensive skills, passing shots. His first serve is also very underrated.

The only areas in which Sampras is visibly better than Federer is the 2nd serve and volleys.

abmk
01-01-2013, 05:22 AM
Agree to an extent. Becker was a great Wimbledon player--from 1985 to 1991. (I might actually be overly generous to him in adding 1991, as the way Stich dismantled him in the final was the beginning of the end for him. As he said after the match: "I feel old today.") After that, he lost a step (and some power) and great servers like Sampras and Ivanisevic just routined him when they met him on grass.

So, yes, Becker was a huge threat on grass--*before* Sampras burst upon the scene. Pete beat him for the first time at Wimbledon *eight years* after his first title, which is like an eternity in tennis. (Coincidentally, Federer beat Sampras eight years after Pete's first Wimby title, so his fans should really make up their minds here--either Sampras was still fully fit and at the height of his prowess, which means that Federer also had a seven-time Wimbledon champion as one of his (main) rivals on grass, or Becker was a past-his-prime, washed-up old mug and the matches he played against Sampras shouldn't be mentioned to try and hype up the American.)

So, which is it? :)

lol, pwned :)

becker did play one great grass court match @ wimby vs agassi in 95 SF, but that's about it .... he was less sharper than at his peak in 93, was bit a tired and a DFing mess in the 95 final and wayyyy past it in the 97 encounter ...

SLD76
01-01-2013, 05:26 AM
lol, pwned :)

becker did play one great grass court match @ wimby vs agassi in 95 SF, but that's about it .... he was less sharper than at his peak in 93, was bit a tired and a DFing mess in the 95 final and wayyyy past it in the 97 encounter ...

this is dangerously close to the old "was pete's era really that strong" argument.

Its a known that many of the so called heavyweights of Pete'se day were either old or declining when he started to dominate.

the lendls. beckers, jmacs, wilander, courier(post 1994) , edberg

when examining his peers we have goran, agassi, rafter, woodbridge, pioline

that does change the argument somewhat.

merlinpinpin
01-01-2013, 05:30 AM
Why do people say Sampras is the Greatest Grass Court Player of all Time?

Nostalgia, that's why. ;)

I think its clear that Federer dominated Wimbledon in a way that Sampras never did.

You're right about that, no question. However, it's also clear that their game was perfectly suited to the grass they had to deal with, ie Sampras with arguably the greatest serve of all time ruled supreme on a surface on which serve was about 80% of the package needed to win, and Federer's all-court game and movement were lethal weapons on the slowed-down grass of the 00's (and still are, although age made them much less potent, if this year is to be believed).

There's a caveat, though, in that Federer showed in 2001 (and 2003) that he had what it took to win on "old" grass, while it's anybody's guess how Sampras would have fared on "new" grass. But that's never here nor there--both compiled huge records on grass during their respective careers, although Federer's are just a tad more impressive (both at Wimbledon and outside Wimbledon).

But of course, there's still the nostalgia card to play for those who want (or need) to. ;)

jokinla
01-01-2013, 08:14 AM
Now they have the same #of titles, and Fed won their only meeting, so it's clear, Fed is better at Wimbledon.

TMF
01-01-2013, 08:28 AM
Sampras is still the greatest on grass. In the 90s, grass competition was the most competitive with Becker, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Stich, Agassi, Henman, Rafter, etc. all playing to win Wimbledon. In the Federer era, only Roddick challenged him and later on the clay courter Nadal challenged and beat him. Losing a Wimbledon final to a clay courter certainly does not put you in the GOAT category on grass.

For the umpteen time since Roger won his 7th Wimbledon:

-he has a better win/loss record
-reach more Wimbledon finals
-more grass titles
-beat more top 10 players
-beat Sampras on his backyard
-won 5 straight Wimbledon

The players you listed above wouldn't beat Roger anyway. In fact, Hewitt, Roddick, Nole, Murray, Nadal are much more likely to beat Pete on slow grass than the 90s players beating Roger on fast grass.

monfed
01-01-2013, 08:37 AM
Maybe I'm out of line here but I think Sampras is a better fast-grass player than Fed while Fed's a better slow-grass(post 2001) than Pete mainly because Sampras's game was more tailored to fast grass compared to Fed as Pete's game was more explosive which is what's needed. Fed still prefers the grass in the first week though so a little quicker but not as quick as the "old grass",I feel.

It's a bit like saying if Fed won 4 RGs and Kuerten only had 3, I'd still rate Kuerten as a better claycourter than Fed because Kuerten's game is more tailored to clay, but isn't this pointing out the obvious?

DropShotArtist
01-01-2013, 08:41 AM
Maybe I'm out of line here but I think Sampras is a better fast-grass player than Fed while Fed's a better slow-grass(post 2001) than Pete mainly because Sampras's game was more tailored to fast grass compared to Fed as Pete's game was more explosive which is what's needed. Fed still prefers the grass in the first week though so a little quicker but not as quick as the "old grass",I feel.

It's a bit like saying if Fed won 4 RGs and Kuerten only had 3, I'd still rate Kuerten as a better claycourter than Fed because Kuerten's game is more tailored to clay, but isn't this pointing out the obvious?

Except if that was true, then why would the defending champion Sampras still very close to his prime get beaten by a baby Fed on fast grass?

90's Clay
01-01-2013, 08:49 AM
A wayyy more quality grass field in Pete's day then in Roger's day. I would say Pete's best was also better then Fed's best on grass as well.


The 2nd best grass court player we have had since 2003 is Nadal.. (Who was a good grass court player, but certainly more of a weak point for him).

Even though Pete had a more quality overall grass field to contend with, he got to 7 titles much quicker as del


If Fed goes on to win 9-10 wimbledon titles then we will see.

monfed
01-01-2013, 08:53 AM
A wayyy more quality grass field in Pete's day then in Roger's day. I would say Pete's best was also better then Fed's best on clay as well.


The 2nd best grass court player we have had since 2003 is Nadal.. (Who was a good grass court player, but certainly more of a weak point for him)

Cmon now,the bolded is taking fandom to a whole new level. :lol:

90's Clay
01-01-2013, 08:55 AM
Cmon now,the bolded is taking fandom to a whole new level. :lol:

1999 final Sampras' best was better then any "Fed best" I've seen

pringles
01-01-2013, 09:00 AM
A wayyy more quality grass field in Pete's day then in Roger's day. I would say Pete's best was also better then Fed's best on clay as well.


The 2nd best grass court player we have had since 2003 is Nadal.. (Who was a good grass court player, but certainly more of a weak point for him).

Even though Pete had a more quality overall grass field to contend with, he got to 7 titles much quicker as well

http://static.themetapicture.com/media/funny-gif-Ed-ONeil-laughing.gif

pringles
01-01-2013, 09:01 AM
1999 final Sampras' best was better then any "Fed best" I've seen

Which CLAY match from 1999 are you referring to?

90's Clay
01-01-2013, 09:02 AM
Which CLAY match from 1999 are you refering to?

my bad.. I meant grass:)


Of course maybe clay as well.. 1995 Clay Sampras Davis Cup? Superior to any Fed best clay. Maybe 1996 French Open between Bruguera and Courier as well


Fed was more consistent on clay, but who knows if best for best he was better

monfed
01-01-2013, 09:03 AM
1999 final Sampras' best was better then any "Fed best" I've seen

2006 Rome Fed would send any clay version of Sampras to the ER room. :lol:

pringles
01-01-2013, 09:06 AM
my bad.. I meant grass:)


Of course maybe clay as well.. 1995 Clay Sampras Davis Cup? Superior to any Fed best clay. Maybe 1996 French Open between Bruguera and Courier as well

Fed was more consistent on clay, but who knows if best for best he was better

You do, you just pointed out that Sampras' best is better than Federer's best on clay.

Here's some proof that you're an ***"* (pick a word):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sy7EPqaxjUI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRmUIwyxpTg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VI8X-bdLkWs (Federer lost but this form would be enough to beat Sampras 1 2 and 3)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUnCOhMV-1U (this also shows that people who claim Sampras was faster are idiots)

To counter these matches you throw in a match that Sampras barely won in DC against Andrei freaking Chesnokov. I mean, really? Sampras was decent on clay in 1992-1996 but still lost just about every match he played with a better clay courter. The only 2 wins he has against FO champions at the French is when they were at their lowest lows, Bruguera was playing just crap while Muster was just coming from a life-threatening accident. Sampras isn't a good clay courter no matter how you present the stats and to claim that he was better than Federer on clay (especially when Federer was at his best) is just pure blasphemy.

TMF
01-01-2013, 09:15 AM
90's Clay, so at their best Pete is also better than Fed on clay too??? You're crazy!

pringles
01-01-2013, 09:17 AM
2006 Rome Fed would send any clay version of Sampras to the ER room. :lol:

Soon we will hear that Sampras could beat Nadal at the French Open. Maybe if Nadal didn't show up and I mean literally didn't show up - got stuck in a jam or something, then Sampras might have a chance.

Petar**s are just mad that Federer took everything away from him, the only area where there still might throw in an arguement or 2 is the best Wimbledon player, not even grass cause Sampras got upset almost every year he played in Queen's by some journeymen while Federer won like 65 matches in a row on grass.

Hard courts and clay have been taken away from Sampras years ago, well it didn't take much to counter him on clay, anyway.

pringles
01-01-2013, 09:19 AM
my bad.. I meant grass:)


Of course maybe clay as well.. 1995 Clay Sampras Davis Cup? Superior to any Fed best clay. Maybe 1996 French Open between Bruguera and Courier as well


Fed was more consistent on clay, but who knows if best for best he was better

Or maybe you meant that Sampras from the 1999 Wimbledon final could counter Federer's best on clay? Well if this is the case, then Pete might have a chance.

TMF
01-01-2013, 09:21 AM
Saying Sampras is better than Fed on clay is like saying Nole is better than Sampras on grass.

pringles
01-01-2013, 09:25 AM
Saying Sampras is better than Fed on clay is like saying Nole is better than Sampras on grass.

He isn't? I thought that beating prime Nadal in a Wimbledon final means something extra, at least more than beating Cedric freaking Pioline in a final.

monfed
01-01-2013, 09:30 AM
Except if that was true, then why would the defending champion Sampras still very close to his prime get beaten by a baby Fed on fast grass?

Gotta throw a bone to the Petetards every once in a while,no point burying them completely,where's the fun in that? :lol:

federerGOAT
01-01-2013, 09:40 AM
Saying Sampras is better than Fed on clay is like saying Nole is better than Sampras on grass.

You are delusional if you think nole is worse than Sampras on grass. Prime nole schools Sampras and his pathetic 120mph serves anytime. Sampras game is a dinosaur in this era and he would be barely top 20.

TMF
01-01-2013, 09:46 AM
You are delusional if you think nole is worse than Sampras on grass. Prime nole schools Sampras and his pathetic 120mph serves anytime. Sampras game is a dinosaur in this era and he would be barely top 20.

I'm a Federer fan, not a ******* like you, so we will never eye to eye.

Prisoner of Birth
01-01-2013, 10:27 AM
If Fed goes on to win 9-10 wimbledon titles then we will see.

Oh, Federer has to win 9-10 Wimbledons to be considered better than Sampras at Wimbledon? :lol: Here are some facts.

(1) Both have the same number of Championships
(2) Federer has won more matches at a higher winning %
(3) Federer has more finals, more semifinals and more quarterfinals
(4) In their only encounter there, on Sampras's favorite "fast grass", Federer beat him

So sorry, Federer is "greater". It is basically indisputable.

zagor
01-01-2013, 10:32 AM
Except if that was true, then why would the defending champion Sampras still very close to his prime get beaten by a baby Fed on fast grass?

In a recent interview Sampras also insinuated that the age gap is irrelevant, therefore Fed beating him on the Centre Court when he (Pete) was a defending champion is of utmost importance to this topic.

90's Clay
01-01-2013, 10:32 AM
Oh, Federer has to win 9-10 Wimbledons to be considered better than Sampras at Wimbledon? :lol: Here are some facts.

(1) Both have the same number of Championships
(2) Federer has won more matches at a higher winning %
(3) Federer has more finals, more semifinals and more quarterfinals
(4) In their only encounter there, on Sampras's favorite "fast grass", Federer beat him

So sorry, Federer is "greater". It is basically indisputable.

1. Overrall grass field during Pete's prime was superior to Roger's (I don't know how this can be disputed. Becker,Agassi,Goran, Rafter>>baby Nadal, Roddick, Hewitt, Phillipousis, Djokovic and Murray on grass

2. Pete managed 7 wimbledon titles between 1993-2000. While it took Fed from 2003-2012 to manage the same amount.


We could also follow your argument as well regarding Finals appearances etc.. Thus giving Sampras the edge over Fed at the USO. Same number of USO titles yet more finals appearances then Rog

Prisoner of Birth
01-01-2013, 10:35 AM
1. Overrall grass field during Pete's prime was superior to Roger's (I don't know how this can be disputed. Becker,Agassi,Goran, Rafter>>baby Nadal, Roddick, Hewitt, Phillipousis, Djokovic and Murray on grass

2. Pete managed 7 wimbledon titles between 1993-2000. While it took Fed from 2003-2012 to manage the same amount

1. Prove it. I could just as easily say the opposite. In fact, I will. The Grass field is stronger today than in Sampras's day.

2. Which only proves Federer's longevity. Federer win 5 Wimbledons in a row and made 7 finals in a row. By contrast, Sampras only ever managed 4 and 4. So Federer has been more consistent and more dominant as well.


About the US Open, yes. You could certainly make that case. But Federer has the better winning % and way, way more consistency. Besides, he's not done yet. And make up your mind. Sampras can't be greater at Wimbledon despite fewer Finals and be the greatest at US Open because of more Finals, considering his consistency is way worse than Federer at both Slams.

zagor
01-01-2013, 10:37 AM
A wayyy more quality grass field in Pete's day then in Roger's day. .

Given that you said tennis eras are impossible to compare I'm afraid we'll have to completely dismiss the statement above.

If Fed goes on to win 9-10 wimbledon titles then we will see.

Not really, no.

As things stands now, Sampras needs to come out of retirement, get a wildcard for Wimbledon and make another final to compare, of course that still wouldn't make up for him not winning 5 Wimbledons in a row (something true legends like Borg and Fed had no trouble achieving) so I'm not sure what he can do at this point?

90's Clay
01-01-2013, 10:39 AM
1. Prove it. I could just as easily say the opposite. In fact, I will. The Grass field is stronger today than in Sampras's day.

2. Which only proves Federer's longevity. Federer win 5 Wimbledons in a row and made 7 finals in a row. By contrast, Sampras only ever managed 4 and 4. So Federer has been more consistent and more dominant as well.


About the US Open, yes. You could certainly make that case. But Federer has the better winning % and way, way more consistency. Besides, he's not done yet. And make up your mind. Sampras can't be greater at Wimbledon despite fewer Finals and be the greatest at US Open because of more Finals, considering his consistency is way worse than Federer at both Slams.

Prove it?? How many wimbledon titles does Roddick and Hewitt, and Phllipousis etc.. have compared to Goran, Becker, and Agassi,?

We can also prove Pete's Longevity over Roger's at the USO. Yet the ****s won't touch that. Once again.. MORE USO finals appearances and he won the USO 12 years apart. Yet when there was a poll done, Sampras had like 8 votes and Fed with 40 plus? How do you figure that? OBJECTIVELY?

Only a completely biased Fed homer would say the grass field was stronger (especially from 2003-2007 or so when Fed won the majority of his grass titles) then it was in the 90s

TMF
01-01-2013, 10:39 AM
1. Overrall grass field during Pete's prime was superior to Roger's (I don't know how this can be disputed. Becker,Agassi,Goran, Rafter>>baby Nadal, Roddick, Hewitt, Phillipousis, Djokovic and Murray on grass

2. Pete managed 7 wimbledon titles between 1993-2000. While it took Fed from 2003-2012 to manage the same amount.


We could also follow your argument as well regarding Finals appearances etc.. Thus giving Sampras the edge over Fed at the USO. Same number of USO titles yet more finals appearances then Rog

But Fed won 5 straight USO, 6 straight finals. Fed also won 5 straight Wimbledon, including 7 straight finals, and is 1-0 against Sampras. Please don't leave out the details.

90's Clay
01-01-2013, 10:41 AM
Given that you said tennis eras are impossible to compare I'm afraid we'll have to completely dismiss the statement above.



Not really, no.

As things stands now, Sampras needs to come out of retirement, get a wildcard for Wimbledon and make another final to compare, of course that still wouldn't make up for him not winning 5 Wimbledons in a row (something true legends like Borg and Fed had no trouble achieving) so I'm not sure what he can do at this point?



ROFLMAO.. So borg is a bigger wimbledon legend then Pete now? 5 wimbledon titles compared to Pete's 7 in an 8 year span between 1993-2000?

TMF
01-01-2013, 10:42 AM
Prove it?? How many wimbledon titles does Roddick and Hewitt, and Phllipousis etc.. have compared to Goran, Becker, and Agassi,?

We can also prove Pete's Longevity over Roger's at the USO. Yet the ****s won't touch that. Once again.. MORE USO finals appearances and he won the USO 12 years apart. Yet when there was a poll done, Sampras had like 8 votes and Fed with 40 plus? How do you figure that? OBJECTIVELY?

None of us can prove which era is better. We have to go by the facts/numbers, which is the only objective way.

merlinpinpin
01-01-2013, 10:43 AM
Soon we will hear that Sampras could beat Nadal at the French Open.

Oh, you mean that?

I'm not denying Federer was superior to Sampras on clay.. I'm just putting into perspective, if Pete had the lollipop draws Fed had en route to the French Open finals that Fed has had over the years, he may have had 1-2 French Open titles himself where if Pete reached the finals (even with Nadal there especially if it was on faster clay and not monte carlo slow type clay) anything could happen.

:roll:

zagor
01-01-2013, 10:43 AM
1. Overrall grass field during Pete's prime was superior to Roger's (I don't know how this can be disputed. Becker,Agassi,Goran, Rafter>>baby Nadal, Roddick, Hewitt, Phillipousis, Djokovic and Murray on grass

Easily, by saying that eras are impossible to compare.

2. Pete managed 7 wimbledon titles between 1993-2000. While it took Fed from 2003-2012 to manage the same amount.

Right, but Fed has an additional final and won 5 Wimbledons in a row at one point.


We could also follow your argument as well regarding Finals appearances etc.. Thus giving Sampras the edge over Fed at the USO. Same number of USO titles yet more finals appearances then Rog

And we could also follow your argument regarding the time it took a player to win a # of titles and apply it to USO comparison as well.

Afteral, it took Sampras 1990-2002 to win 5 USOs while it took Fed 2004-2008, the difference is considerably bigger in this regard compared to the same advantage Sampras enjoys in Wimbledon comparison.

In short: 8 years difference >>>> 2 years difference

zagor
01-01-2013, 10:45 AM
ROFLMAO.. So borg is a bigger wimbledon legend then Pete now? 5 wimbledon titles compared to Pete's 7 in an 8 year span between 1993-2000?

Yes, because he had tougher competition on grass and won 5 Wimbledons in a row, Sampras would have to win 2 more Wimbledons at the very least to compensate.

90's Clay
01-01-2013, 10:47 AM
Yes, because he had tougher competition on grass and won 5 Wimbledons in a row, Sampras would have to win 2 more Wimbledons at the very least to compensate.

You just said we can't compare eras

Sabratha
01-01-2013, 10:47 AM
Because he played in different conditions on a (basically) different surface.

90's Clay
01-01-2013, 10:48 AM
Ivanisevic has 1. Becker has 3. Agassi has 1.
Hewitt has 1. Nadal has 2 (possibly more). Djokovic has 1 (possibly more). And then there are guys like Murray. I don't see much of a difference, really.

So let me get this straight. Is Final appearances important or not? If they are, Federer>Sampras at Wimbledon. If they aren't, Federer>Sampras at US Open. Make up your mind, ****.

And Becker has how many?

Prisoner of Birth
01-01-2013, 10:50 AM
And Becker has how many?

Can't you see?

By your logic, Federer's competition will be just as strong as Sampras's the minute anyone wins Wimbledon next year and Federer is still in the draw. Way to dig your own grave :)

90's Clay
01-01-2013, 10:52 AM
I bet 90's **** won't respond to your argument. You just handed his to him on a platter :lol:

He just said Borg had greater grass competition then Pete.. So hes comparing eras

zagor
01-01-2013, 10:53 AM
You just said we can't compare eras

Nope,never said that, you on the other hand claimed eras are impossible to compare and then went on and compared Fed and Sampras' grass field, yes?

zagor
01-01-2013, 10:56 AM
He just said Borg had greater grass competition then Pete.. So hes comparing eras

When did I say that eras are impossible/too difficult to compare?

Prisoner of Birth
01-01-2013, 10:57 AM
He just said Borg had greater grass competition then Pete.. So hes comparing eras

If we can't compare eras, we can only compare stats. And Federer OWNS Sampras in that regard at just about every Slam (except finals at the US Open). So Federer> Sampras? You basically accepted it.

monfed
01-01-2013, 11:00 AM
90s clud is pointing to Roddick not having won Wimby as proof of Fed not having competition on grass.

Well, Roddick was beaten in all those Wimby finals by Fed so Fed would have to lose to Roddick in some of those finals to prove that he had stronger competition by his absurd logic.

So its a lose-lose situation for Fed, cause to prove he had "better competition" he'd have to lose some of his finals(apart from 08 ) to Roddick. But this would also mean Fed would have less Wimbys.

BTW,Ivanisevic won Wimby when Sampras was put out by Federer in that Wimby, if Fed had been put out in 09,Roddick would've won too probably. So it's not like Ivanisevic won Wimby bang in Petro's reign,Petro was simply beating up on Ivanisevic when he was a slam virgin.

90's Clay
01-01-2013, 11:01 AM
Fed's main grass competition has been Djoker (Average at best on grass), Murray (Average at best on grass), Roddick (ROFLMAO) and a baby Nadal at the time who barely had ANY grass court tournaments under his belt, and Phillipousis (A sampras era holdover who did NOTHING in the 90s on grass yet made a wimbledon finals in 2003?).. I think that speaks for itself.

While Pete's was Becker (an all time great grass court player with multiple wimbledons), Goran(superior to Fed's main grass competition), Agassi (superior to Fed's main grass competition and superior to a baby rookie Nadal on grass), Rafter (Slightly superior to Fed's main grass competition) and others

Prisoner of Birth
01-01-2013, 11:02 AM
Fed's main grass competition has been Djoker (Average at best on grass), Murray (Average at best on grass), Roddick (ROFLMAO) and a baby Nadal at the time who barely had ANY grass court tournaments under his belt,.. I think that speaks for itself.

Sampras's main competition on Grass has been oldman Becker (who was basically irrelevant), headcase Ivanisevic (ROFLMFAO), and... that's it :lol:

Federer won a few Wimbledons with Agassi in the draw. So you can count him as competition for Federer, too :) And Rafter? LOLOLOLOLOLOL don't make me laugh

fed_rulz
01-01-2013, 11:03 AM
You just said we can't compare eras

he didn't; he was just quoting you.

Petetards must be on roll, getting trolled by someone as neutral as zagor :)

90's Clay
01-01-2013, 11:05 AM
If you notice, how bad grass took a dump post 90s.. Look at Phillipousis' and Goran's run AFTER the 90s. Goran couldn't win a wimbledon title until after the 90s and Pete's prime ended (yet he won wimbledon once the 2000's hit,) and Phillipousis reaching a wimbledon final (while he couldn't do anything at wimbledon in the 90s).

Then you got a ROOKIE Nadal reach two straight wimbledon finals in the mid 00s and 19 year old Nalbandian reaching the finals?? . Huh??

Major weak sauce there

fed_rulz
01-01-2013, 11:06 AM
If you notice, how bad grass took a dump post 90s.. Look at Phillipousis' and Goran's run AFTER the 90s. Goran couldn't win a wimbledon title until after the 90s and Pete's prime ended (yet he won wimbledon once the 2000's hit,) and Phillipousis reaching a wimbledon final (while he couldn't do anything at wimbledon in the 90s).

Then you got a ROOKIE Nadal reach two straight wimbledon finals in the mid 90s.

Major weak sauce there

wimbledon finalists during during Pete's prime:

MALIVAI WASHINGTON
CEDRIC PIOLINE
...

should i go on?

90's Clay
01-01-2013, 11:07 AM
wimbledon finalists during during Pete's prime:

MALIVAI WASHINGTON
CEDRIC PIOLINE
...

should i go on?



Pioline was pretty good on grass. Washington had a good tournament. Still more impressive then a 19 year old Nalbandian, and a diaper Rash Nadal making the finals because of a HORRIBLE weak draw

Prisoner of Birth
01-01-2013, 11:07 AM
If you notice, how bad grass took a dump post 90s.. Look at Phillipousis' and Goran's run AFTER the 90s. Goran couldn't win a wimbledon title until after the 90s and Pete's prime ended (yet he won wimbledon once the 2000's hit,) and Phillipousis reaching a wimbledon final (while he couldn't do anything at wimbledon in the 90s).

Then you got a ROOKIE Nadal reach two straight wimbledon finals in the mid 00s and 19 year old Nalbandian reaching the finals?? . Huh??

Major weak sauce there

That's because Ivanisevic and Rafter were major jokes on the surface and lost to nobodies, unlike Nadal who is consistent and actually great enough to make 5 Wimbledon finals.

90's Clay
01-01-2013, 11:08 AM
That's because Ivanisevic and Rafter were major jokes on the surface and lost to nobodies, unlike Nadal who is consistent and actually great enough to make 5 Wimbledon finals.

Rafter and Goran a joke on grass? ROFLMAO. Both superior to Fed's main opposition Roddick and rookie Nadal.

pringles
01-01-2013, 11:09 AM
Pioline was pretty good on grass. Washington had a good tournament. Still more impressive then a 19 year old Nalbandian, and a diaper Rash Nadal making the finals because of a HORRIBLE weak draw

Washington had a good tournament but Nalbandian couldn't.

Btw he wasn't 19, he was even closer to 21 than 20 and a year and a half at that age is massive. Just compare Nadal from 2007 to 2008.

monfed
01-01-2013, 11:09 AM
Sampras's main competition on Grass has been oldman Becker (who was basically irrelevant), headcase Ivanisevic (ROFLMFAO), and... that's it :lol:

Federer won a few Wimbledons with Agassi in the draw. So you can count him as competition for Federer, too :) And Rafter? LOLOLOLOLOLOL don't make me laugh

Not to forget stalwarts such as Pioline, Todd Martin and british headcase Henman. :lol:

zagor
01-01-2013, 11:09 AM
If you notice, how bad grass took a dump post 90s.. Look at Phillipousis' and Goran's run AFTER the 90s. Goran couldn't win a wimbledon title until after the 90s and Pete's prime ended (yet he won wimbledon once the 2000's hit,) and Phillipousis reaching a wimbledon final (while he couldn't do anything at wimbledon in the 90s).

Then you got a ROOKIE Nadal reach two straight wimbledon finals in the mid 00s and 19 year old Nalbandian reaching the finals?? . Huh??

Major weak sauce there

So we can agree that Washington and Pioline reaching Wimbledon finals proves 90s was major weak sauce?

90's Clay
01-01-2013, 11:10 AM
Not to forget stalwarts such as Pioline, Todd Martin and british headcase Henman. :lol:

Henman is around the equivalent of Fed's MAIN grass competition (He also beat Fed at wimbledon). I fail to see how Phillipousis or baby Nadal in the finals is so much superior then Henman,Pioline or Martin

pringles
01-01-2013, 11:11 AM
Pioline was pretty good on grass. Washington had a good tournament. Still more impressive then a 19 year old Nalbandian, and a diaper Rash Nadal making the finals because of a HORRIBLE weak draw

Pioline also made a US Open final. Man if Pioline can reach multiple slam finals in Sampras' era what does it tell us? Gonzalez and Baghdatis reached a major final but that was it, they were just having a good tournament (like Washington as you mentioned) and never replicated it again.

I guess Pioline was good enough to become a multiple slam finalist in the 90's, then. Todd Martin too.

90's Clay
01-01-2013, 11:11 AM
So we can agree that Washington and Pioline reaching Wimbledon finals proves 90s was major weak sauce?

Late 90s was a bit bit weaker.. But the early-mid 90s grass field is superior to ANYTHING we have had since on grass in terms of talent and depth

Prisoner of Birth
01-01-2013, 11:11 AM
Henman is around the equivalent of Fed's MAIN grass competition (He also beat Fed at wimbledon). I fail to see how Phillipousis or baby Nadal in the finals is so much superior then Henman,Pioline or Martin

4-time defending Champion Sampras couldn't beat baby-Fed :lol:

pringles
01-01-2013, 11:12 AM
Henman is around the equivalent of Fed's MAIN grass competition (He also beat Fed at wimbledon). I fail to see how Phillipousis or baby Nadal in the finals is so much superior then Henman,Pioline or Martin

But Federer beat Sampras at Wimbledon.

So let me get thiings straight.

Henman>Federer>Sampras>Henman

Got it.

90's Clay
01-01-2013, 11:12 AM
But Federer beat Sampras at Wimbledon.

So let me get thiings straight.

Henman>Federer>Sampras>Henman

Got it.



I'm just pointing out how SILLY people are here to dismiss Henman on grass. Hes still better then watching a Phillipousis make the finals, or watching diaper rash Nadal in his 4th or 5th grass court tournament ever making a wimbleodn finals or a freakin 19 YEAR OLD Nalbandian.

pringles
01-01-2013, 11:13 AM
Late 90s was a bit bit weaker.. But the early-mid 90s grass field is superior to ANYTHING we have had since on grass in terms of talent and depth

1996 (Washington and Krajicek) and 1997 (Pioline) isn't LATE 90's, it's very much the essence of the 90's.

Btw if the late 90's were "a bit weaker" should we reevaluate Sampras' 1999 performance thanks to weaker competition?

90's Clay
01-01-2013, 11:15 AM
1996 (Washington and Krajicek) and 1997 (Pioline) isn't LATE 90's, it's very much the essence of the 90's.

Btw if the late 90's were "a bit weaker" should we reevaluate Sampras' 1999 performance thanks to weaker competition?


Sure you can try. But most feel that was highest level ever seen by a player (1999 wimbledon finals).. Also the fact he took out a close to peak Andre on grass in the finals that year.

But I agree. Phillipousis or Roddick or baby Nadal in a wimbledon final should be looked at as "superior" ROFLMAO

pringles
01-01-2013, 11:16 AM
I'm just pointing out how SILLY people are here to dismiss Henman on grass. Hes still better then watching a Phillipousis make the finals, or watching diaper rash Nadal in his 4th or 5th grass court tournament ever making a wimbleodn finals or a freakin 19 YEAR OLD Nalbandian.

Nalbandian - born January 1st 1982, played a Wimbledon final in July 2002, how was he 19 at the time? It was the luck of the draw that Nalbandian made the final there, sometimes he played way better and lost before the final (2003 US as the main example). Just as the 2005 US OPen when Agassi was fortunate with having a rather easy draw while Federer had to battle through Nalbandian and Hewitt, both of which could stand a good chance of beating Agassi in the tournament if they happened to land in his half of the draw.

Towser83
01-01-2013, 11:16 AM
Prove it?? How many wimbledon titles does Roddick and Hewitt, and Phllipousis etc.. have compared to Goran, Becker, and Agassi,?

We can also prove Pete's Longevity over Roger's at the USO. Yet the ****s won't touch that. Once again.. MORE USO finals appearances and he won the USO 12 years apart. Yet when there was a poll done, Sampras had like 8 votes and Fed with 40 plus? How do you figure that? OBJECTIVELY?

Only a completely biased Fed homer would say the grass field was stronger (especially from 2003-2007 or so when Fed won the majority of his grass titles) then it was in the 90s

Hewitt has 1 title the year before federer started dominating the same way agassi won one title the year before sampras started dominating. Goran won one title the year baby fed beat sampras - so you know that can't count cos defending champ sampras was washed up etc. Becker won all his wimbledons before sampras was a factor at wimbledon so doesn't count. the first time he won it was a whole 8 years before sampras won his first. 8 years after sampras won his first federer was beating him so might as well use sampras as one of federer's rivals lol.

As for the us open, if you prize more finals and longevity as the most important factor then Pete is better at the uso and fed at wimbledon. if you prize defending titles and winning in a short period of time then its the opposite. you are such a tardy for Pete you claim Pete is best at both. you probably think he is the better French open champion too lol.

After all, only a total homer would claim he would have 1-2 rg titles in this era.

Btw people diss scud but he beat sampras in slams twice and was beating him at wimbledon too before he had to retire. had he won samptards would hail him as another great 90s player.

fed_rulz
01-01-2013, 11:16 AM
GameSampras must be sadomasochist -- (s)he seems to relish all the new ones torn, and seems to come back for more .. i can't come up with a rational explanation for his/her posts that invite pwnage repeatedly -- same MO, ignore all arguments, data, facts presented, but always start backwards -- conclusion first, making up stuff to fit conclusion.

:confused:

pringles
01-01-2013, 11:19 AM
Sure you can try. But most feel that was highest level ever seen by a player (1999 wimbledon finals).. Also the fact he took out a close to peak Andre on grass in the finals that year.

But I agree. Phillipousis or Roddick or baby Nadal in a wimbledon final should be looked at as "superior" ROFLMAO

Who's the "most feel" again? Care to tell us?

And ROFLMAO at your face. I take Nadal on slow grass>>>>>>>>>Rafter on fast. Nadal made every final from 2005-2011 apart from 2009 when he didn't even enter and you compare that to Rafter who made 1 measly final at Wimbledon and choked nonetheless?

fed_rulz
01-01-2013, 11:20 AM
Sure you can try. But most feel that was highest level ever seen by a player (1999 wimbledon finals).. Also the fact he took out a close to peak Andre on grass in the finals that year.

But I agree. Phillipousis or Roddick or baby Nadal in a wimbledon final should be looked at as "superior" ROFLMAO

not really.. agassi was at his peak on grass in 1999? what about 1992? so, Pete's peak did not coincide with agassi's??

90's Clay
01-01-2013, 11:21 AM
Who's the "most feel" again? Care to tell us?

And ROFLMAO at your face. I take Nadal on slow grass>>>>>>>>>Rafter on fast. Nadal made every final from 2005-2011 apart from 2009 when he didn't even enter and you compare that to Rafter who made 1 measly final at Wimbledon and choked nonetheless?

You take BABY Nadal in his 4th or 5th grass court tournament ever (Only reason for reaching the finals was a CRAP draw) over PEAK Rafter on grass? WOW.

zagor
01-01-2013, 11:22 AM
he didn't; he was just quoting you.

Petetards must be on roll, getting trolled by someone as neutral as zagor :)

Heh, I'm hardly neutral.

pringles
01-01-2013, 11:24 AM
You take BABY Nadal in his 4th or 5th grass court tournament ever (Only reason for reaching the finals was a CRAP draw) over PEAK Rafter on grass? WOW.

Why take 2006 Nadal over his 2007/2008 version?

No wonder you think that Sampras had more competition on grass if you take his very best rivals in their best ever form and compare it to the worst the 00's/10's.

It's like I said - Federer had to battle past all-time greats Djokovic and Nadal all the time while Sampras' biggest rival Agassi was a methhead and never bothered to show up. See how easy that was?

2008 Nadal destroys 2000 Rafter of course if we consider how much they were a threat that day.

tudwell
01-01-2013, 11:24 AM
Nadal is better on grass than anyone Sampras faced other than Becker. The current grass field is not weak.

90's Clay
01-01-2013, 11:25 AM
Why take 2006 Nadal over his 2007/2008 version?

No wonder you think that Sampras had more competition on grass if you take his very best rivals in their best ever form and compare it to the worst the 00's/10's.

It's like I said - Federer had to battle past all-time greats Djokovic and Nadal all the time while Sampras' biggest rival Agassi was a methhead and never bothered to show up. See how easy that was?

2008 Nadal destroys 2000 Rafter of course if we consider how much they were a threat that day.


When Nadal hit his top grass form, Fed lost obviously. 2006/2007 was not top form Nadal when Fed beat him. .. ROFLMAO @ saying Djoker is an all time grass court great.. Dude is the equivalent of Henman on grass. Possibly worse

Prisoner of Birth
01-01-2013, 11:26 AM
When Nadal hit his top grass form, Fed lost obviously. 2006/2007 was not top form Nadal when Fed beat him. .. ROFLMAO @ saying Djoker is an all time grass court great.. Dude is the equivalent of Henman on grass. Possibly worse

Djokovic is a Wimbledon champion, unlike the joke that is Henman :lol:

pringles
01-01-2013, 11:27 AM
When Nadal hit his top grass form, Fed lost obviously. 2006/2007 was not top form Nadal when Fed beat him. .. ROFLMAO @ saying Djoker is an all time grass court great.. Dude is the equivalent of Henman on grass. Possibly worse

2007 Wimbledon was not top form Nadal? That performance was on par with his 2008 final, the difference was Federer who played worse in 2008.

And Henman is already worse than Murray who has at least another 5 years of possible great performances, with Nadal being a non-factor and Federer getting older I expect him to win Wimbledon at least once in the future. Djokovic is a Wimbledon champion (beating Nadal).

Stop making a complete fool of yourself.

tudwell
01-01-2013, 11:27 AM
When Nadal hit his top grass form, Fed lost obviously. 2006/2007 was not top form Nadal when Fed beat him. .. ROFLMAO @ saying Djoker is an all time grass court great.. Dude is the equivalent of Henman on grass. Possibly worse

Nadal was just as good in 2007 as he was in 2008. At least in his finals performances.

And your Henman comparison is laughable. Djokovic is probably about on the level of Agassi on grass. Not Henman. Good Lord, not even close to Henman.

pringles
01-01-2013, 11:31 AM
Nadal was just as good in 2007 as he was in 2008. At least in his finals performances.

And your Henman comparison is laughable. Djokovic is probably about on the level of Agassi on grass. Not Henman. Good Lord, not even close to Henman.

How could one say that Henman is better than Djokovic on grass? I mean really? Of course by 90's standards Djokovic looks weaker cause he doesn't volley as much, simply CAUSE HE DOESN'T HAVE TO. Bring back prime Henman today and he loses to Djokovic in straight sets, 4 max.

pringles
01-01-2013, 11:32 AM
When Nadal hit his top grass form, Fed lost obviously. 2006/2007 was not top form Nadal when Fed beat him. .. ROFLMAO @ saying Djoker is an all time grass court great.. Dude is the equivalent of Henman on grass. Possibly worse

And Henman was owned completely by teenage Hewitt, who was more than a part of Federer's Wimbledon winning years, beating him in 2004, 2005 and 2008. So Henman was great on grass but Hewitt wasn't?

You're losing it.

90's Clay
01-01-2013, 11:33 AM
I can put this subject matter to rest and that will be the end of it. Novak freakin Djokovic won a wimbledon title. I rest.. my case.. Thats it..

INFERIOR grass court era. Signed and sealed. Novak would not even come CLOSE to winning a wimbledon title in ANY era except for this.

You have all been destroyed.. Thanks for playing

DropShotArtist
01-01-2013, 11:36 AM
I can put this subject matter to rest and that will be the end of it. Novak freakin Djokovic won a wimbledon title. I rest.. my case.. Thats it..

INFERIOR grass court era. Signed and sealed. Novak would not even come CLOSE to winning a wimbledon title in ANY era except for this.

You have all been destroyed.. Thanks for playing

LOL didn't Malavai Washington and Cedric Pioline make finals in the 90s! :)

pringles
01-01-2013, 11:36 AM
I can put this subject matter to rest and that will be the end of it. Novak freakin Djokovic won a wimbledon title. I rest.. my case.. Thats it..

INFERIOR grass court era. Signed and sealed. Novak would not even come CLOSE to winning a wimbledon title in ANY era except for this.

If Djokovic played in the 90's he would develop a more 90's game. Djokovic actually started of as an aggressive baseliner, he had a fantastic serve and volleyed well, just look at his 2008 AO tournament. He's grinding more now cause that's are the conditions he has to play in.

Federer could also serve and volley incredibly well in the early 00's until 2003 or 2004. He can still bring it on from time to time but not on such a consistent basis. If Sampras played in the current era he would develop more of a baseline game.

90's Clay
01-01-2013, 11:36 AM
And Henman was owned completely by teenage Hewitt, who was more than a part of Federer's Wimbledon winning years, beating him in 2004, 2005 and 2008. So Henman was great on grass but Hewitt wasn't?

You're losing it.

Would Hewitt have done anything at wimbledon in any era that wasn't transitional like 2002?

90's Clay
01-01-2013, 11:37 AM
LOL didn't Malavai Washington and Cedric Pioline make finals in the 90s! :)

Did they win wimbledon? Nope.. But a grass CLOWN like DJoker in this era did win wimbledon

Once again.. I rest my case

Prisoner of Birth
01-01-2013, 11:38 AM
Did they win wimbledon? Nope.. But a grass CLOWN like DJoker in this era did win wimbledon

Once again.. I rest my case

If Djokovic is a Grass clown, so are Agassi and Ivanisevic.

pringles
01-01-2013, 11:39 AM
Would Hewitt have done anything at wimbledon in any era that wasn't transitional like 2002?

19-year old Hewitt owned Sampras on grass and you're telling me that Hewitt wouldn't win a Wimbledon in any other era. Hewitt is the most unlucky player in history, he would be a nightmare match-up for Sampras at Wimbledon in the 90's if he was a bit older. Then Federer started to dominate from the baseline and poor Lleyton had no targets to aim at (unlike with Sampras who attacked the net a lot and gave Hewitt a chance to hit a passing shot or a lob).

DropShotArtist
01-01-2013, 11:40 AM
Did they win wimbledon? Nope.. But a grass CLOWN like DJoker in this era did win wimbledon

Once again.. I rest my case

Did those nobodies get to finals at Wimbledon??? LOL, yes! It means they were close to winning. 90s was the most pathetic weak era. Those finalists prove it.

p.s. wanna talk about winning? Didn't 1 slam winner Krajicek win it in the 90s????? LOLLLLLLLLLLL

90's Clay
01-01-2013, 11:43 AM
19-year old Hewitt owned Sampras on grass and you're telling me that Hewitt wouldn't win a Wimbledon in any other era. Hewitt is the most unlucky player in history, he would be a nightmare match-up for Sampras at Wimbledon in the 90's if he was a bit older. Then Federer started to dominate from the baseline and poor Lleyton had no targets to aim at (unlike with Sampras who attacked the net a lot and gave Hewitt a chance to hit a passing shot or a lob).

19 year old Hewitt beat Sampras where? Some small tournament? Yea because we know Sampras took those small grass tournaments as seriously as Wimbledon:shock:

Prisoner of Birth
01-01-2013, 11:44 AM
19 year old Hewitt beat Sampras where? Some small tournament? Yea because we know Sampras took those small grass tournaments as seriously as Wimbledon:shock:

Oh, Sampras got his butt kicked so he must not have taken the match seriously :roll:

90's Clay
01-01-2013, 11:44 AM
Oh, Sampras got his butt kicked so he must not have taken the match seriously :roll:

Sampras rarely ever took small grass tournaments prior to wimbledon seriously.. Thats no secret.

pringles
01-01-2013, 11:45 AM
Did they win wimbledon? Nope.. But a grass CLOWN like DJoker in this era did win wimbledon

Once again.. I rest my case

To sum up what you're trying to say.

All the great grass courter of the current era (and starting obviously since 2001 when Sampras was owned by baby Federer meaning he was too old at 29) are weak. Hewitt, Roddick, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray and Federer suck major balls and they wouldn't be a factor in any other era besides 2002+

Sampras is the greatest grass courter of all time, he even tops Pioline.

Agassi is the second best grass courter of all time, Becker was in his grass prime in 1995 and Sampras owned Edberg at Wimbledon despite not playing him once there. Ivanisevic was a fantastic Wimbledon player and he was known for NEVER choking on big occasions. Henman is fanstastic, I had a drink with him a couple of days ago. Philippoussis is obviously great (as he beat Sampras twice in majors and was owing him in 1999 before he got injured) but ONLY until Wimbledon 2003, where he had to play Federer. Philippoussis started to suck once he got to play Federer for the first time in his career. Rafter is also a top 90's grass player despite not making it past the 4th round at Wimbledon until 1999. That doesn't matter, though.

Did I miss someone? Oh, yes, Krajicek. He was obviously Sampras' biggest rival at Wimbledon, he even beat him there in 1996. Krajicek was great but because the grass field of the 90's was so fantasticly great, he couldn't get deep enough through the draw to meet (beat) Sampras again. That's how tough it was.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

TMF
01-01-2013, 11:48 AM
When Nadal hit his top grass form, Fed lost obviously. 2006/2007 was not top form Nadal when Fed beat him. .. ROFLMAO @ saying Djoker is an all time grass court great.. Dude is the equivalent of Henman on grass. Possibly worse

Henman is not even equivalent to Tsonga.

pringles
01-01-2013, 11:48 AM
19 year old Hewitt beat Sampras where? Some small tournament? Yea because we know Sampras took those small grass tournaments as seriously as Wimbledon:shock:

7-6 6-1 6-1. Nuff said.

Sampras didn't take his US Open finals seriously, though, unless he was playing his most favorable match-up in Agassi, that is.

Prisoner of Birth
01-01-2013, 11:48 AM
Sampras rarely ever took small grass tournaments prior to wimbledon seriously.. Thats no secret.

Sampras was embarrassingly bad at Roland Garros
VERDICT : He didn't take it seriously

Sampras got owned at Queen's by Hewitt
VERDICT : He didn't take it seriously

Sampras lost to Federer at Wimbledon on Center Court on Fast Grass
VERDICT : He didn't take it seriously

:roll: :roll: :roll:

90's Clay
01-01-2013, 11:48 AM
To sum up what you're trying to say.

All the great grass courter of the current era (and starting obviously since 2001 when Sampras was owned by baby Federer meaning he was too old at 29) are weak. Hewitt, Roddick, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray and Federer suck major balls and they wouldn't be a factor in any other era besides 2002+

Sampras is the greatest grass courter of all time, he even tops Pioline.

Agassi is the second best grass courter of all time, Becker was in his grass prime in 1995 and Sampras owned Edberg at Wimbledon despite not playing him once there. Ivanisevic was a fantastic Wimbledon player and he was known for NEVER choking on big occasions. Henman is fanstastic, I had a drink with him a couple of days ago. Philippoussis is obviously great (as he beat Sampras twice in majors and was owing him in 1999 before he got injured) but ONLY until Wimbledon 2003, where he had to play Federer. Philippoussis started to suck once he got to play Federer for the first time in his career. Rafter is also a top 90's grass player despite not making it past the 4th round at Wimbledon until 1999. That doesn't matter, though.

Correct me if I'm wrong.


Accoring to Fed homers, Fed has been too old since he was 26. I fail to see the difference.. Sampras was old by 2001 and past his prime (Needed 5 sets to beat Barry Cowan at wimbledon?)

No one said Agassi the 2nd best grass courter of all time.. Yet hes superior to a young Nadal, Hewitt and Roddick on grass. Becker wasn't in prime form by the early-mid 90s but his grass court credentials can't be denied and beating Becker (making his last stand) on grass, trumps beating a no slam bum like Phillipousis, or diaper rash Nadal in a wimbledon final (in his 4th or 5th grass court tournament ever with almost NO experience)

Fed also is 0-3 vs. Rafter

Prisoner of Birth
01-01-2013, 11:50 AM
To sum up what you're trying to say.

All the great grass courter of the current era (and starting obviously since 2001 when Sampras was owned by baby Federer meaning he was too old at 29) are weak. Hewitt, Roddick, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray and Federer suck major balls and they wouldn't be a factor in any other era besides 2002+

Sampras is the greatest grass courter of all time, he even tops Pioline.

Agassi is the second best grass courter of all time, Becker was in his grass prime in 1995 and Sampras owned Edberg at Wimbledon despite not playing him once there. Ivanisevic was a fantastic Wimbledon player and he was known for NEVER choking on big occasions. Henman is fanstastic, I had a drink with him a couple of days ago. Philippoussis is obviously great (as he beat Sampras twice in majors and was owing him in 1999 before he got injured) but ONLY until Wimbledon 2003, where he had to play Federer. Philippoussis started to suck once he got to play Federer for the first time in his career. Rafter is also a top 90's grass player despite not making it past the 4th round at Wimbledon until 1999. That doesn't matter, though.

Did I miss someone? Oh, yes, Krajicek. He was obviously Sampras' biggest rival at Wimbledon, he even beat him there in 1996. Krajicek was great but because the grass field of the 90's was so fantasticly great, he couldn't get deep enough through the draw to meet (beat) Sampras again. That's how tough it was.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Here's a small correction. Sampras only lost to Krajicek and Federer at Wimbledon because *GASP* he didn't take the matches seriously! :shock:

Prisoner of Birth
01-01-2013, 11:53 AM
Accoring to Fed homers, Fed has been too old since he was 26. I fail to see the difference.. Sampras was old by 2001 and past his prime (Needed 5 sets to beat Barry Cowan at wimbledon?)

No one said Agassi the 2nd best grass courter of all time.. Yet hes superior to a young Nadal, Hewitt and Roddick on grass. Becker wasn't in prime form by the early-mid 90s but his grass court credentials can't be denied and beating Becker (making his last stand) on grass, trumps beating a no slam bum like Phillipousis, or diaper rash Nadal in a wimbledon final (in his 4th or 5th grass court tournament ever with almost NO experience)

Fed also is 0-3 vs. Rafter

Only one of Federer's losses to Rafter was on Grass.

Sampras is 1-2 versus Hewitt on Grass :)

pringles
01-01-2013, 11:56 AM
Accoring to Fed homers, Fed has been too old since he was 26. I fail to see the difference.. Sampras was old by 2001 and past his prime (Needed 5 sets to beat Barry Cowan at wimbledon?)

Federer obviously wasn't at his very best since 2008 where he was 27 but one should only give credit to Nadal who was playing great and pushed him harder and harder. Sampras could drop 50% of his peak form at Wimbledon and still none of the chokers could beat him (bar Krajicek who owned Sampras). Obviously he's going to have it easier if he has to play Henman's and Ivanisevic's all the time unlike facing Nadal in every final. Fast grass also helped his a** when he could just serve his way through the title, I'm sure Sampras would have it much easier against 2008 Nadal who got a big amount of returns in, hit passing shots that Sampras has never seen in his life and was stuck in long rallies. Much easier than serving your way through to another tie-break with Ivanisevic and wait for him to choke (again).

No one said Agassi the 2nd best grass courter of all time.. Yet hes superior to a young Nadal, Hewitt and Roddick on grass. Becker wasn't in prime form by the early-mid 90s but his grass court credentials can't be denied and beating Becker (making his last stand) on grass, trumps beating a no slam bum like Phillipousis, or diaper rash Nadal in a wimbledon final (in his 4th or 5th grass court tournament ever with almost NO experience)

Yet Roddick made 3 Wimbledon finals (all 3 lost to Federer), Nadal made 5 (won 5, lost 2 to Federer and 1 to Djokovic) and Hewitt won Wimbledon and lost to Federer another 3 times there. How many times did Agassi play Sampras at Wimbledon again?

Fed also is 0-3 vs. Rafter

Wow you're throwing heavy machinery now. At least prime Federer never got double breadsticked by the likes of Santoro.

90's Clay
01-01-2013, 11:59 AM
Federer obviously wasn't at his very best since 2008 where he was 27 but one should only give credit to Nadal who was playing great and pushed him harder and harder. Sampras could drop 50% of his peak form at Wimbledon and still none of the chokers could beat him (bar Krajicek who owned Sampras). Obviously he's going to have it easier if he has to play Henman's and Ivanisevic's all the time unlike facing Nadal in every final.



Yet Roddick made 3 Wimbledon finals (all 3 lost to Federer), Nadal made 5 (won 5, lost 2 to Federer and 1 to Djokovic) and Hewitt won Wimbledon and lost to Federer another 3 times there. How many times did Agassi play Sampras at Wimbledon again?





Wow you're throwing heavy machinery now. At least prime Federer never got double breadsticked by the likes of Santoro.

Agassi played Pete twice at wimbledon I believe (both times when Agassi was playing GREAT tennis on grass once in 1999 playing arguably his PEAK tennis).. Yet when Fed played Nadal, we all know Nadal was yet to become on grass what he would become later by 2008. 2008 and 2010 wimbledon Nadal would give even PEAK Fed issues on grass. (since 2007 Rafa took peak fed to 5 sets at wimbledon)



Agassi>>>>Rodddick anyway you slice it on EVERY surface.. I'm sorry. Agassi>>>Nole on grass.

pringles
01-01-2013, 12:04 PM
Agassi played Pete twice at wimbledon I believe (both times when Agassi was playing GREAT tennis on grass once in 1999 playing arguably his PEAK tennis).. Yet when Fed played Nadal, we all know Nadal was yet to become on grass what he would become later by 2008. 2008 and 2010 wimbledon Nadal would give even PEAK Fed issues on grass. (since 2007 Rafa took peak fed to 5 sets at wimbledon)

Agassi>>>>Rodddick anyway you slice it on EVERY surface.. I'm sorry. Agassi>>>Nole on grass.

Agassi made 2 finals on grass in his entire career (both at Wimbledon), he won 1 (Wimbledon in 1992).

Roddick made 3 Wimbledon finals (all lost to Federer) and another semi at Wimbledon (once again lost to Federer), he won Queen's Club 4 times (a shared record) and won the only meeting on grass against Agassi in Queen's in 2003 when Agassi was still more than a factor. Overall Roddick has 5 titles on grass to Agassi's 1. Not saying that I would take those 5 over Wimbledon but if Agassi was such a better grass courter than Roddick, one would expect to win him more than 1 fluked Wimbledon?

Roddick never had the chance to play Wimbledon not facing Federer ANY TIME unlike Agassi who won his only Wimbledon without facing Sampras and like Ivanisevic who won Wimbledon 2001 without the need to beat Sampras. Roddick had Federer every single time.

90's Clay
01-01-2013, 12:07 PM
Agassi made 2 finals on grass in his entire career (both at Wimbledon), he won 1 (Wimbledon in 1992).

Roddick made 3 Wimbledon finals (all lost to Federer) and another semi at Wimbledon (once again lost to Federer), he won Queen's Club 4 times (a shared record) and won the only meeting on grass against Agassi in Queen's in 2003 when Agassi was still more than a factor.

How is Agassi that much better on grass than Roddick, again?


Agassi has a wimbledon title (Beat Becker and Goran en route in 1992, Something Roddick couldn't do).. Roddick doesn't despite all those finals he made (and choked away on some to be quite frank).

Agassi also probably would have had his share of wimbledon titles too if not for Sampras lets not forget( Probably would have won in 1993 and 1999) giving him 3 wimbledon titles. (Who knows maybe more if Andre didn't go MIA for 3 years).

Agassi has also CRAPPED on Roddick in their h2h match ups. He owns the h2h 5-1. He also can just do more off the wing, from the baseline, and was a 4 times more competent player of the ground then Roddick EVER was.

Agassi's conquests on grass were also more impressive then Roddick's

Prisoner of Birth
01-01-2013, 12:07 PM
Agassi played Pete twice at wimbledon I believe (both times when Agassi was playing GREAT tennis on grass once in 1999 playing arguably his PEAK tennis).. Yet when Fed played Nadal, we all know Nadal was yet to become on grass what he would become later by 2008. 2008 and 2010 wimbledon Nadal would give even PEAK Fed issues on grass. (since 2007 Rafa took peak fed to 5 sets at wimbledon)



Agassi>>>>Rodddick anyway you slice it on EVERY surface.. I'm sorry. Agassi>>>Nole on grass.

Roddick > Agassi on Grass. Djokovic = Agassi on Grass. I'm sorry but this is the truth.

90's Clay
01-01-2013, 12:10 PM
Roddick > Agassi on Grass. Djokovic = Agassi on Grass. I'm sorry but this is the truth.

ROFLMAO.. Yea Roddick and his ZERO wimbledon titles.

Prisoner of Birth
01-01-2013, 12:12 PM
ROFLMAO.. Yea Roddick and his ZERO wimbledon titles.

ROFLMAO Agassi and his 0 Queen's titles compared to Roddick's

SLD76
01-01-2013, 12:13 PM
I say we shut this thread down and all go and get Baconators.

pringles
01-01-2013, 12:16 PM
Agassi has a wimbledon title (Beat Becker and Goran en route in 1992, Something Roddick couldn't do).. Roddick doesn't despite all those finals he made (and choked away on some to be quite frank).

Something Roddick couldn't do cause he was 10 at the time. I'm sure Roddick would like his chances more against Becker and Ivanisevic than having to play his nemesis in every single year.

Agassi also probably would have had his share of wimbledon titles too if not for Sampras lets not forget( Probably would have won in 1993 and 1999) giving him 3 wimbledon titles. (Who knows maybe more if Andre didn't go MIA for 3 years).

Same arguements apply to Roddick. Take Federer out of the draw and he is the favorite to win Wimbledon in 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2009.

Agassi has also CRAPPED on Roddick in their h2h match ups. He owns the h2h 5-1. He also can just do more off the wing, from the baseline, and was a 4 times more competent player of the ground then Roddick EVER was.

How funny that out of the 5-1 record that Agassi has over Roddick the one time they played on grass Roddick won, LOL. If Agassi was superior to Roddick ine very department how did he lose on grass?

Agassi's conquests on grass were also more impressive then Roddick's

Roddick has some good wins himself (including beating Hewitt a couple of times, Agassi, Murray) but it has more to do with longevity rather than Agassi being a much better grass courter. Agassi played on a high level from his teens till his mid 30's while Roddick only has like 5-6 years where he played well. This is not what we're discussing, though.

pringles
01-01-2013, 12:17 PM
ROFLMAO.. Yea Roddick and his ZERO wimbledon titles.

So if Sampras managed to beat baby Federer and win the title (who was gonna stop him? Henman or Ivanisevic? LOL), then Ivanisevic would have 0 titles as well. Would that disqualify him as a great grass courter?

90's Clay
01-01-2013, 12:19 PM
Something Roddick couldn't do cause he was 10 at the time. I'm sure Roddick would like his chances more against Becker and Ivanisevic than having to play his nemesis in every single year.



Same arguements apply to Roddick. Take Federer out of the draw and he is the favorite to win Wimbledon in 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2009.



How funny that out of the 5-1 record that Agassi has over Roddick the one time they played on grass Roddick won, LOL. If Agassi was superior to Roddick ine very department how did he lose on grass?



Roddick has some good wins himself (including beating Hewitt a couple of times, Agassi, Murray) but it has more to do with longevity rather than Agassi being a much better grass courter. Agassi played on a high level from his teens till his mid 30's while Roddick only has like 5-6 years where he played well. This is not what we're discussing, though.


Its important to compare prime for prime between the two.. Agassi's grass prime ended in 1999 or 2000) Yet when he was in his grass prime his conquests on grass were superior to Roddick had he won wimbledon via a HARD draw. At the end of the day, Agassi got the feat done and Roddick didn't.
Roddick was closer to his prime then Agassi was during their match ups and Roddick couldn't even manage more then 1 win.
Andre had a better grass career then Roddick. He won wimbledon, roddick didn't.

90's Clay
01-01-2013, 12:21 PM
So if Sampras managed to beat baby Federer and win the title (who was gonna stop him? Henman or Ivanisevic? LOL), then Ivanisevic would have 0 titles as well. Would that disqualify him as a great grass courter?



Sampras wasn't going to win the title that year in 2001.. He was playing AWFUL for his standards. If Fed didn't beat him, Goran or Rafter was going to

Prisoner of Birth
01-01-2013, 12:23 PM
Andre had a better grass career then Roddick. He won wimbledon, roddick didn't.

Federer has a better grass career than Sampras. He won as many Wimbledons, made more finals, semifinals, quarterfinals, won more Queen's titles, and even beat Sampras on his best fast grass court. So Federer>Sampras :)

Hitman
01-01-2013, 12:25 PM
Why have there been so many Federer versus Sampras threads lately?

This war has gone out of control.

pringles
01-01-2013, 12:25 PM
Sampras wasn't going to win the title that year in 2001.. He was playing AWFUL for his standards. If Fed didn't beat him, Goran or Rafter was going to

Sure they would :rolleyes:

New unstained blood was needed to beat Sampras at Wimbledon and that happened to be Federer.

90's Clay
01-01-2013, 12:27 PM
Sure they would :rolleyes:

New unstained blood was needed to beat Sampras at Wimbledon and that happened to be Federer.



Hmm.. Did you see how well Goran was playing that tournament (Best ever ever played on grass or close to it), Yet the way Pete was playing it was his WORST performance ever at wimbledon (next to his 2002 retirement year)

Goran would have DESTROYED Sampras that year

90's Clay
01-01-2013, 12:27 PM
Why have there been so many Federer versus Sampras threads lately?

This war has gone out of control.

Its all their fault.

pringles
01-01-2013, 12:27 PM
Andre had a better grass career then Roddick. He won wimbledon, roddick didn't.

You don't seem to realize that's not what we're discussing. The question was who was a better grass courter not who had a better career.

So until 2012 would you claim that Berdych was a better grass courter than Murray because he made a Wimbledon final while Murray (at that point) hasn't?

Prisoner of Birth
01-01-2013, 12:28 PM
Hmm.. Did you see how well Goran was playing that tournament (Best ever ever played on grass or close to it), Yet the way Pete was playing it was his WORST performance ever at wimbledon (next to his 2002 retirement year)

Baby-Fed beat 4-time defending Champion Sampras :twisted:

pringles
01-01-2013, 12:28 PM
Hmm.. Did you see how well Goran was playing that tournament (Best ever ever played on grass or close to it), Yet the way Pete was playing it was his WORST performance ever at wimbledon (next to his 2002 retirement year)

Goran would have DESTROYED Sampras that year

Sampras himself said that he played a pretty good match against Federer just that Federer was better. But do please argue how awful he was.

90's Clay
01-01-2013, 12:29 PM
You don't seem to realize that's not what we're discussing. The question was who was a better grass courter not who had a better career.

So until 2012 would you claim that Berdych was a better grass courter than Murray because he made a Wimbledon final while Murray (at that point) hasn't?

Who knows who's better for sure. Did they play prime for prime vs. each other on grass? My money would go to Agassi though since he beat far more formidable grass opponents on grass. If Andre could beat Goran and Becker en route to a wimbledon title. Why exactly couldn't he beat freakin Roddick?

Roddick isn't even as good as Goran was on grass prime for prime.. Heck Roddick couldn't even handle OLD Goran on grass in 2001.

But since we can't formulate this objectively.. Agassi won wimbledon, Roddick didn't

pringles
01-01-2013, 12:31 PM
Its important to compare prime for prime between the two.. Agassi's grass prime ended in 1999 or 2000) Yet when he was in his grass prime his conquests on grass were superior to Roddick had he won wimbledon via a HARD draw. At the end of the day, Agassi got the feat done and Roddick didn't.
Roddick was closer to his prime then Agassi was during their match ups and Roddick couldn't even manage more then 1 win.
Andre had a better grass career then Roddick. He won wimbledon, roddick didn't.

So who was a better grass courter, then - Edberg or Nadal?

Cause you said that Agassi won Wimbledon while Roddick hasn't therefore Agassi is a better grass courter.

Nadal has the same number of Wimbledons as Edberg but more finals. Is Nadal a better grass courter than Edberg?

Or are you going to flip flop to "more competition" again just because you have an uncomfortable question?

90's Clay
01-01-2013, 12:34 PM
So who was a better grass courter, then - Edberg or Nadal?

Cause you said that Agassi won Wimbledon while Roddick hasn't therefore Agassi is a better grass courter.

Nadal has the same number of Wimbledons as Edberg but more finals. Is Nadal a better grass courter than Edberg?

Or are you going to flip flop to "more competition" again just because you have an uncomfortable question?



Edberg and Nadal are pretty close. But Nadal's extra two wimbledon finals (came in 2006 and 2007 when his draws were this)


Round Opponent Ranking Score
R128 Alex Bogdanovic (GBR) 135 W 6-4, 7-6(3), 6-4 Stats
R64 Robert Kendrick (USA) 237 W 6-7(4), 3-6, 7-6(2), 7-5, 6-4 Stats
R32 OLDD Andre Agassi (USA) 20 W 7-6(5), 6-2, 6-4 Stats
R16 Irakli Labadze (GEO) 166 W 6-3, 7-6(4), 6-3 Stats
Q Jarkko Nieminen (FIN) 18 W 6-3, 6-4, 6-4 Stats
S Marcos Baghdatis (CYP) 16 W 6-1, 7-5, 6-3 Stats
F Roger Federer (SUI) 1 L 0-6, 6-7(5), 7-6(2), 3-6

Round Opponent Ranking Score
R128 Mardy Fish (USA) 38 W 6-3, 7-6(4), 6-3 Stats
R64 Werner Eschauer (AUT) 72 W 6-2, 6-4, 6-1 Stats
R32 Robin Soderling (SWE) 28 W 6-4, 6-4, 6-7(7), 4-6, 7-5 Stats
R16 Mikhail Youzhny (RUS) 13 W 4-6, 3-6, 6-1, 6-2, 6-2 Stats
Q Tomas Berdych (CZE) 11 W 7-6(1), 6-4, 6-2 Stats
S Novak Djokovic (SRB) 5 W 3-6, 6-1, 4-1 RET Stats
F Roger Federer (SUI) 1 L 6-7(7), 6-4, 6-7(3), 6-2, 2-6 Stats

Draws can't get any crumbier then that

pringles
01-01-2013, 12:34 PM
Who knows who's better for sure. Did they play prime for prime vs. each other on grass? My money would go to Agassi though since he beat far more formidable grass opponents on grass. If Andre could beat Goran and Becker en route to a wimbledon title. Why exactly couldn't he beat freakin Roddick?

The fact the h2h is 5-1 in favor of Agassi but the only time they played on grass Roddick won is telling.

Roddick isn't even as good as Goran was on grass prime for prime.. Heck Roddick couldn't even handle OLD Goran on grass in 2001.

What a ret****d arguement, so 18-year old Roddick playing his first year on tour was supposed to beat an in-form Ivanisevic on fast grass? Why couldn't 29-year old Sampras beat baby Federer at Wimbledon, then? Back to the drawing board.

But since we can't formulate this objectively.. Agassi won wimbledon, Roddick didn't

And Nadal has won the same number of Wimbledons as Edberg but made more finals, therefore Nadal>Edberg on grass. Explain.

pringles
01-01-2013, 12:36 PM
Edberg and Nadal are pretty close. But Nadal's extra two wimbledon finals (came in 2006 and 2007 when his draws were this)

Draws can't get any crumbier then that

Let me get this straight cause I'm getting bored.

Agassi having won Wimbledon and Roddick not makes Roddick a better grass court player. Period.

Why doesn't this suddenly apply to Nadal being a better grass courter than Edberg? And you come up with "weak draws" again? WTF?

90's Clay
01-01-2013, 12:37 PM
Let me get this straight cause I'm getting bored.

Agassi having won Wimbledon and Roddick not makes Roddick a better grass court player. Period.

Why doesn't this suddenly apply to Nadal being a better grass courter than Edberg? And you come up with "weak draws" again? WTF?



Roddick doesn't have a greater grass career since Agassi won the ultimate holy grail of grass and Roddick didn't. I don't know how to explain that any further for your little peon brain to get that message. It makes Agassi better and greater. He could get it done.. Roddick didn't

pringles
01-01-2013, 12:39 PM
Roddick doesn't have a greater grass career since Agassi won the ultimate holy grail of grass and Roddick didn't. I don't know how to explain that any further for your little peon brain to get that message.

Nice try at avoiding the question. First you say that achievements matter most (Agassi greater than Roddick on grass because he achieved more). Then when I come up with Nadal>Edberg on grass you mention draws. Make up your mind, already.

90's Clay
01-01-2013, 12:42 PM
Nice try at avoiding the question. First you say that achievements matter most. Then when I come up with Nadal>Edberg on grass you mention draws.


I dont put as much stock into finals appearances (As ****s do), though they are important.. But I believe you should also have to look at the draws and examine ALL ASPECTS Of how they made the finals as well and they should be taken into account.

I don't think most would say that Nadal>Edberg on grass.


Like I said, those finals appearances that Nadal in 2006 and 2007, were among the worst draws I've ever seen. God awful. But then that goes back to my first (90s grass field>>>00's grass field)

Would 2006 Nadal reach the finals at wimbledon in the 90s?

pringles
01-01-2013, 12:47 PM
I dont put as much stock into finals appearances (As ****s do), though they are important.. But I believe you should also have to look at the draws and examine ALL ASPECTS Of how they made the finals as well and they should be taken into account.

Haha look at you backpedalling. Let's try another question and see what you come up with this time:

Who is a better clay courter - Gaudio or Coria? Since you "don't put much stock into final" that would be Gaudio, then? Or is this is a special case?:)

I don't think most would say that Nadal>Edberg on grass.

But you just said that Agassi is better than grass because of his achievements, why doesn't this apply to Nadal>Edberg on grass?


Like I said, those finals appearances that Nadal in 2006 and 2007, were among the worst draws I've ever seen. God awful. But then that goes back to my first (90s grass field>>>00's grass field)

Would 2006 Nadal reach the finals if wimbledon in the 90s?

Would Cedric Pioline reach a Wimbledon final these days?

pringles
01-01-2013, 12:49 PM
Or let's ask another question - who is a better AO player - Safin of Johansson? Since you don't put much stock into finals, then

Safin=Johansson at the AO, damn I would even give a small advantage to Johansson as he beat Safin in the final in 2002.

90's Clay
01-01-2013, 12:51 PM
Haha look at you backpedalling. Let's try another question and see what you come up with this time:

Who is a better clay courter - Gaudio or Coria? Since you "don't put much stock into final" that would be Gaudio, then? Or is this is a special case?:)



But you just said that Agassi is better than grass because of his achievements, why doesn't this apply to Nadal>Edberg on grass?




Would Cedric Pioline reach a Wimbledon final these days?


Hey if you want to believe Rafa on grass>>>Edberg thats your opinion.. Same number of titles.. You can formulate an opinion for either side.

But when you got compare a guy who won one wimbledon to a guy who won ZERO thats different.

Now if Agassi won his one wimbledon title beating complete no name mugs, that would be different.. But he had to beat great grass players to win it or if he never did anything at wimbledon again.. But he did. While Roddick, still sitting with nothing on the wimbledon count

Agassi>>>Roddick in ALL aspects..Deal with it

federerGOAT
01-01-2013, 12:51 PM
I'm a Federer fan, not a ******* like you, so we will never eye to eye.

One of the best returners of all time can easily handle a dinosaur like sampras and his outdated game. You probably are a petetard.

Steve0904
01-01-2013, 12:54 PM
One of the best returners of all time can easily handle a dinosaur like sampras and his outdated game. You probably are a petetard.

No, TMF is pro Federer. Don't ever make that mistake again.

pringles
01-01-2013, 12:56 PM
Hey if you want to believe Rafa on grass>>>Edberg thats your opinion.. Same number of titles.. You can formulate an opinion for either side.

But when you got compare a guy who won one wimbledon to a guy who won ZERO thats different.

Now if Agassi won his one wimbledon title beating complete no name mugs, that would be different.. But he had to beat great grass players to win it or if he never did anything at wimbledon again.. But he did. While Roddick, still sitting with nothing on the wimbledon count

Agassi>>>Roddick in ALL aspects..Deal with it

Agassi never had to beat Sampras to win his Wimbledon. Roddick never had the chance to go through an easier draw (easier = no Federer) until....well never. Agassi was lucky that he won that Wimbledon in 1992, if he played in the exact same form in any of 1993-2000 he would've lost to Sampras.

pringles
01-01-2013, 01:00 PM
Hey if you want to believe Rafa on grass>>>Edberg thats your opinion.. Same number of titles.. You can formulate an opinion for either side.

But when you got compare a guy who won one wimbledon to a guy who won ZERO thats different.

Now if Agassi won his one wimbledon title beating complete no name mugs, that would be different.. But he had to beat great grass players to win it or if he never did anything at wimbledon again.. But he did. While Roddick, still sitting with nothing on the wimbledon count

Agassi>>>Roddick in ALL aspects..Deal with it

Or who was a better snooker player - Jimmy White or Neil Robertson?

FYR Jimmy White made 5 consecutive World Championship finals (and 6 finals total) while Robertson won the title in 2010 and never made another final.

Since you said achievements matter most is Robertson>>White?

90's Clay
01-01-2013, 01:04 PM
Or who was a better snooker player - Jimmy White or Neil Robertson?

FYR Jimmy White made 5 consecutive World Championship finals (and 6 finals total) while Robertson won the title in 2010 and never made another final.

Since you said achievements matter most is Robertson>>White?

Isn't that what greatness is determined by?

Towser83
01-01-2013, 01:13 PM
Only one of Federer's losses to Rafter was on Grass.

Sampras is 1-2 versus Hewitt on Grass :)

you also have to laugh at people talking about Rafter's H2H with Federer since he retired in 2001 before Federer had even won a masters. And that one meeting on grass in 2001 in Halle had Federer winning a set with a break and and then Rafter needing 2 tiebreaks to win. Which points to the probability that prime Fed would bust him up on grass. Even if you look at Fed's loss to Henman at Wimbledon, Henman wins his sets by 2 tiebreaks and 7-5, Fed takes a 6-2 set. Obvious that Federer was very close to making the semis - hell if not for being in shock after beating Sampras and "on a mission with God's blessings" Goran, Federer could have even won Wimby that year. He was only getting beaten because he had not yet become the best tiebreak player in world history. :twisted:

Towser83
01-01-2013, 01:16 PM
Isn't that what greatness is determined by?

Not ability? Then really Fed>Pete as a player and if he ever wins another US Open or Wimbledon he will be greater there too without any argument.

That's when you abandon the achievements argument where winning more equals being better and then other arguments start, such as beating up on players past their prime etc

90's Clay
01-01-2013, 01:17 PM
Not ability? Then really Fed>Pete as a player and if he ever wins another US Open or Wimbledon he will be greater there too without any argument.

That's when you abandon the achievements argument where winning more equals being better and then other arguments start, such as beating up on players past their prime etc

"Ability wise" Agassi was able to win Wimbledon, Roddick wasn't.

I could say "ability wise" Safin may have been better then everyone but the numbers don't equate to that.

pringles
01-01-2013, 01:22 PM
Or who was a better snooker player - Jimmy White or Neil Robertson?

FYR Jimmy White made 5 consecutive World Championship finals (and 6 finals total) while Robertson won the title in 2010 and never made another final.

Since you said achievements matter most is Robertson>>White?

Isn't that what greatness is determined by?

Therefore there can only be 1 conclusion - Federer is greater than Sampras because he achieved more.

fed_rulz
01-01-2013, 01:24 PM
Agassi has a wimbledon title (Beat Becker and Goran en route in 1992, Something Roddick couldn't do).. Roddick doesn't despite all those finals he made (and choked away on some to be quite frank).

Agassi also probably would have had his share of wimbledon titles too if not for Sampras lets not forget( Probably would have won in 1993 and 1999) giving him 3 wimbledon titles. (Who knows maybe more if Andre didn't go MIA for 3 years).

Agassi has also CRAPPED on Roddick in their h2h match ups. He owns the h2h 5-1. He also can just do more off the wing, from the baseline, and was a 4 times more competent player of the ground then Roddick EVER was.

Agassi's conquests on grass were also more impressive then Roddick's

if Agassi's peak was 1999, how did sub-peak Agassi beat Becker in 1992? what does that say about Becker's level? was Becker worse than Agassi on grass despite his 3 wimbledons?

fed_rulz
01-01-2013, 01:28 PM
Hmm.. Did you see how well Goran was playing that tournament (Best ever ever played on grass or close to it), Yet the way Pete was playing it was his WORST performance ever at wimbledon (next to his 2002 retirement year)

Goran would have DESTROYED Sampras that year

Who knows who's better for sure. Did they play prime for prime vs. each other on grass? My money would go to Agassi though since he beat far more formidable grass opponents on grass. If Andre could beat Goran and Becker en route to a wimbledon title. Why exactly couldn't he beat freakin Roddick?

Roddick isn't even as good as Goran was on grass prime for prime.. Heck Roddick couldn't even handle OLD Goran on grass in 2001.

But since we can't formulate this objectively.. Agassi won wimbledon, Roddick didn't

can you make up your mind? Was Goran playing well or not in 2001?

90's Clay
01-01-2013, 01:31 PM
can you make up your mind? Was Goran playing well or not in 2001?

What?? He was playing well but also OLD. Why is it Goran was not able to win any wimbledon titles in the 90s, yet managed this feat in 2001 when he was in his early 30s at the very end of his career?

fed_rulz
01-01-2013, 01:39 PM
What?? He was playing well but also OLD. Why is it Goran was not able to win any wimbledon titles in the 90s, yet managed this feat in 2001 when he was in his early 30s at the very end of his career?

if he was playing his best in 2001, why does it matter if he was OLD? so you do agree that the times Pete met Goran at wimbledon earlier, Goran was sub-par?

Prisoner of Birth
01-01-2013, 01:42 PM
if he was playing his best in 2001, why does it matter if he was OLD? so you do agree that the times Pete met Goran at wimbledon earlier, Goran was sub-par?

:) You're wasting your time. We've already won the argument.

He says you can't compare across eras except by stats. Stats say Federer is better than Sampras at EVERY tournament. That's it!

Towser83
01-01-2013, 01:52 PM
Accoring to Fed homers, Fed has been too old since he was 26. I fail to see the difference.. Sampras was old by 2001 and past his prime (Needed 5 sets to beat Barry Cowan at wimbledon?)

No one said Agassi the 2nd best grass courter of all time.. Yet hes superior to a young Nadal, Hewitt and Roddick on grass. Becker wasn't in prime form by the early-mid 90s but his grass court credentials can't be denied and beating Becker (making his last stand) on grass, trumps beating a no slam bum like Phillipousis, or diaper rash Nadal in a wimbledon final (in his 4th or 5th grass court tournament ever with almost NO experience)

Fed also is 0-3 vs. Rafter

Fed was too past it to deal with another all time great who was in his prime. He still was a great player but after 4 years of domination it's obvious you are going to dip a bit and if another all time great comes into THEIR best years they will be able to edge you. Sampras was past his best at 2001 Wimbledon, but he still was defending champ and lost to a FUTURE all time great, but at that time Federer was nowhere near his prime like Nadal was in 2007 onwards.

While we're talking of Becker, let's be real. A very good player but not on the level of either Sampras or Federer even at his best, nevermind 8 years past first winning Wimbledon. His first win had a weak draw and he never had to play the previous greats like Borg, Mac and connors. The best players of his generation were Edberg and Lendl but we all know Lendl couldn't find his game on grass.

Who knows who's better for sure. Did they play prime for prime vs. each other on grass? My money would go to Agassi though since he beat far more formidable grass opponents on grass. If Andre could beat Goran and Becker en route to a wimbledon title. Why exactly couldn't he beat freakin Roddick?

Roddick isn't even as good as Goran was on grass prime for prime.. Heck Roddick couldn't even handle OLD Goran on grass in 2001.

But since we can't formulate this objectively.. Agassi won wimbledon, Roddick didn't

Well heck, Rafter couldn't even handle OLD Goran that year. You know strong grass legend Rafter (who never won Wimbledon). And this was a dude who had made the Wimby final the year before, not some 18 year old kid like Roddick was. So if Roddick sucks because he couldn't handle Goran, Rafter must REALLY suck. Would make sense seeing as he needed 2 tiebreaks to beat baby fed at Halle after losing the first set 6-4.

Personally I think Goran was a God that year... oh what's this?


Hmm.. Did you see how well Goran was playing that tournament (Best ever ever played on grass or close to it), Yet the way Pete was playing it was his WORST performance ever at wimbledon (next to his 2002 retirement year)

Goran would have DESTROYED Sampras that year

Soooo let me get this straight, on one hand you say OLD Goran like he was useless but when it suits you you say it was his best ever play? Yeah this is the chopping and changing and squirming you love doing. Like -

"Ability wise" Agassi was able to win Wimbledon, Roddick wasn't.

I could say "ability wise" Safin may have been better then everyone but the numbers don't equate to that.


Yeah well "ability" wise Federer has broken most of Pete's records. But you will use some argument to counter you original criterion if you ahve to. By the wy by ability I mean one player may be much better than another but still might not win as much. Achievements are easier to deal with. Agassi won wimbledon and Roddick didn't, that's a fact. One could argue that Roddick was still a better grass player and just didn't win because of ceryain reason. Such as opposition, luck, playing speed etc.. you see? Because using achievements Federer beats sampras by a fair way, but you will still argue playing ability wise, Pete is the man. So which criterion is it? hard statistics or opinions on playing ability?

No, just switch from one to the other. Don't use facts to reach a conclusion, pick the conclusion you want and try to bend the facts to fit.

Prisoner of Birth
01-01-2013, 02:00 PM
Fed was too past it to deal with another all time great who was in his prime. He still was a great player but after 4 years of domination it's obvious you are going to dip a bit and if another all time great comes into THEIR best years they will be able to edge you. Sampras was past his best at 2001 Wimbledon, but he still was defending champ and lost to a FUTURE all time great, but at that time Federer was nowhere near his prime like Nadal was in 2007 onwards.

While we're talking of Becker, let's be real. A very good player but not on the level of either Sampras or Federer even at his best, nevermind 8 years past first winning Wimbledon. His first win had a weak draw and he never had to play the previous greats like Borg, Mac and connors. The best players of his generation were Edberg and Lendl but we all know Lendl couldn't find his game on grass.



Well heck, Rafter couldn't even handle OLD Goran that year. You know strong grass legend Rafter (who never won Wimbledon). And this was a dude who had made the Wimby final the year before, not some 18 year old kid like Roddick was. So if Roddick sucks because he couldn't handle Goran, Rafter must REALLY suck. Would make sense seeing as he needed 2 tiebreaks to beat baby fed at Halle after losing the first set 6-4.

Personally I think Goran was a God that year... oh what's this?




Soooo let me get this straight, on one hand you say OLD Goran like he was useless but when it suits you you say it was his best ever play? Yeah this is the chopping and changing and squirming you love doing. Like -




Yeah well "ability" wise Federer has broken most of Pete's records. But you will use some argument to counter you original criterion if you ahve to. By the wy by ability I mean one player may be much better than another but still might not win as much. Achievements are easier to deal with. Agassi won wimbledon and Roddick didn't, that's a fact. One could argue that Roddick was still a better grass player and just didn't win because of ceryain reason. Such as opposition, luck, playing speed etc.. you see? Because using achievements Federer beats sampras by a fair way, but you will still argue playing ability wise, Pete is the man. So which criterion is it? hard statistics or opinions on playing ability?

No, just switch from one to the other. Don't use facts to reach a conclusion, pick the conclusion you want and try to bend the facts to fit.

Best. Post. Ever. You totally ripped him apart :)

Towser83
01-01-2013, 02:26 PM
Best. Post. Ever. You totally ripped him apart :)

Thanks. Doesn't really matter though does it? When someone doesn't understand that the reason being old is an issue is because usually old people have lost their form, and that if you are playing your best ever, age doesn't mean anything, then there is no hope of having a reasonable debate with them :lol:

I mean "yeah he was playing his best, but he was still old" - what sense does that make? He's just robbed the term "old" of any meaning within the discussion.

Also a point I wanted to make is I find it hilarious that Hewitt gets laughed at when 2 years after turning pro he was beating Sampras on grass in straight sets and on fast indoor hard at the TMC 7-5 6-0... yep baby Hewitt bagelled the defending Wimbledon champ on indoor hard.

Scud also is talked about like he's crap yet he beat Sampras in 2 slams, both in straight sets in 1996 at the AO (on HC and in Sampras's prime) and in 5 sets at RG in 2000. He also was giving him a hard time at Wimbledon til he got injured whilst a set up. If he had won that match, he would be considered another 90s grass great just like Wimbledon fluker Krajicek. :lol:

tudwell
01-01-2013, 02:26 PM
Agassi played Pete twice at wimbledon I believe (both times when Agassi was playing GREAT tennis on grass once in 1999 playing arguably his PEAK tennis).. Yet when Fed played Nadal, we all know Nadal was yet to become on grass what he would become later by 2008. 2008 and 2010 wimbledon Nadal would give even PEAK Fed issues on grass. (since 2007 Rafa took peak fed to 5 sets at wimbledon)

What did Nadal do substantially better at 2008 Wimbledon that he didn't do in 2007? You act like his form skyrocketed the way Djokovic's did in 2011, which is simply not the case. He played at about the exact same level. In one match, he lost a close five-setter, and in the other, he won. That's the only significant difference.