Greatest Grass Court Player of All Time.

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Talker, Nov 24, 2012.

  1. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,547
    Destroying

    Come now - being behind 1-2 isn't 'Destroying' Federer as you say. (And that one win is by the slimest of margins).
     
    #51
  2. Gaudio2004

    Gaudio2004 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Messages:
    741
    The existence of something going against what he is accusing you of (underrating Federer) need not be disregarded or mean the argument is seen as a joke or put aside. It merely shows that others do not underrate Federer or perhaps underrate others. But..

    As you do not have the self-awareness to understand it yourself, by offering such a poor response you are actually showing that you are indeed misunderstanding what he is saying.

    There are several arguments for Federer being the greatest professional grass court player. Several arguments, by professionals themselves (the ones you regard to be better than Federer on a grass court), testify to Federer being head and shoulders above them.

    Listen and learn!

    One aspect of understanding how truly stunning Federer is to tennis and to sport is that there are so few athletes like Federer in any sport, let alone tennis, for the whole duration of the sport, that for someone like him to pop up, naturally all of the sport is compared and tossed together. Some do not understand him by overrating his skills, some expect superhuman performances from him, you do not understand what puts him above others. And let's face it, he is above everyone else in the sport in just about everything meaningful. Stop underrating him!

    Federer had 4-0 at some point against Nadal in their meetings in Monte Carlo 2008 final and Hamburg 2008 final . He had 17 break points against Nadal in the French Open 2007 final. He was 6-1, 1*-0 ahead in the French Open 2006 final. By your very same argument (and I will use your exact words), Federer came close to beating Nadal in 2008 whilst being injured (mono)... Federer could very well be X-X vs Nadal on clay. (Probably even better if Federer had recorded those victories and gained more confidence)

    See how poor of an argument it is?

    Federer is head and shoulders above Nadal on grass. That is, if you call modern day Wimbledon "grass" grass. Even then, Nadal has lost to players of the calibre of Lopez, Kohlschreiber, etc, on grass. Federer has lost to Nadal, Tsonga, Berdych, Hewitt in his last grass meetings, players who have all reached or won a Major final, and have all reached the SF of Wimbledon (barring Tsonga, all have reached the final).

    The point? Players who have beaten Federer on grass have delivered exceptional performances and were expected to do well. Nadal has lost to those on grass who are not expected to do as well, Lopez, Rosol, Kohlschreiber, just to name a few.
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2012
    #52
  3. Gaudio2004

    Gaudio2004 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Messages:
    741
    It is remarkable how awful your arguments are. Granted, everyone has an opinion, but given that you have spent so much time on these forums, one would expect for you to have learned.

    Let's begin to reconstruct this awful argument into something.

    First, pure numbers (ie how many Slams one has won) do not determine "greatness" or GOATness.

    What defines Nadal so well as a clay-courter for example, is certainly (and it will never be) not how many Roland Garros titles he has won. Often he looks short of confidence on clay, faces players who are more tactically astute and can do more on clay than he can, I recall him facing torture on the first 30 minutes of the French Open 2011 final.

    What defines him as being the GOAT on clay is how he plays on the surface, how he uses his body, his style of play, how he breaks his opponent down.

    That "torture" turned to Nadal being more aggressive and him digging deep and winning a tough match before breaking Federer's concentration and slipping an easy fourth set.

    That is how his GOATness is defined on clay - how he breaks players who enter with super tactics.

    So already the first 7/8 lines of your argument have gone. A good beginning. And given that Federer has the most match wins in AO/UO (or one of them) and such other statistics can be found, it is an awful argument. I hope you read this again and again until you get it through to your brain; what you have said is not an argument for Federer not being the GOAT. It is poor logic and an example of how not having understanding of a specific topic.

    "The ones he holds are shared by others" : Yes, by others in different generations. Some of those generations did not have seven rounds for Majors, some had much less (and some I recall, had just one match). With different equipment, different tactics and such huge globalisation and much more competitors now, it is hard to assess statistical equivalence (ie, 5 now is equal to 5 back then). Laver, Borg, etc, have all said how Federer is better than them and the GOAT of all time.

    What can we deduce from this?

    When you make statements about others having better (or equal records) than Federer, take a look at those exact players themselves, who have achieved those records and have played. Take a look at what they have said. They all say the same; Federer is the best and better than them.

    Finally, we clean up by looking what your last part is really saying. And when you look at back it, you will realise how stupid it is. Specifically, I will quote:

    "As I said he is far from the Michael Phelps of tennis. Now if it were Phelps you were talking about you probably couldnt think of a single one."

    He is not the "Michael Phelps" of tennis, he is the Roger Federer of tennis.

    Similarly, Michael Phelps is not the "Roger Federer" of swimming, by the same argument.

    The quoted is related to the following statements/questions

    * Is Michael Phelps the sole definition of GOATness in a sport?
    * Swimming and tennis are similar in how athletes are skilled, therefore we can compare the skills of athletes of totally different sports.
    * You cannot object to Federer being the GOAT of tennis - first you must compare him to someone superb in a different sport, and see if Federer objectively, somehow by comparing, passes the tests that Phelps has passed in swimming.

    More can be involved and I can make it more silly. Simply put, GOATness is an abstraction, the second our silly minds start putting a concrete example (which is bias, as we do not want a different concrete example) to be associated to this specific abstractness, we then cannot ever see a different example being that abstraction.

    In simple talk; because Phelps is the GOAT of swimming in my mind, Federer cannot be the GOAT of tennis, he must first pass what Phelps has done in swimming in a somehow comparable way to tennis.

    It is just silly; read and learn. I have never seen such an awful argument.

    EDIT: I rarely post, I just had to explain and respond to such an imbecilic post.
     
    #53
  4. MTF07

    MTF07 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    775
    Well, if you're going to play that game, Federer could be 4-1 or 5-1 against Nadal on grass if he had played him in 2003, 2004, 2005... i.e. some of Federer's peak years on grass.
     
    #54
  5. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,230
    Federer dominated the grass in this era and Pete dominated on fast grass of the 90s. However, if they were to meet 20 times with 10 each on slow and fast grass, Fed would win most of the 20 meetings. Because of Fed proved that he can play on fast grass plus serve/volley. I believe Fed's chance of beating Sampras on fast grass is a lot greater than Sampras beating Fed on slow grass. There's no serve/volley player that could touch Roger on grass, however there were baseliners that have beaten Sampras or at least gave him fit on grass. Also, the matchup favors Federer, who thrives against serve/volley players. The win/loss record would be like 12-8 in favor of Federer.
     
    #55
  6. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Absurd comments since there is absolutely no proof of that. Federer has never faced a top serve and volley player in his career (no one match against old Sampras is not enough) so there is no evidence whatsoever there is no serve/volley player who can touch Federer. Not prime Federer, but Patrick Rafter is 3-0 vs Federer, and Tim Henman has an almost tied H2H with Federer, and beat Federer in back to back matches in late 2003 and early 2004 when Federer was already starting his prime and Henman was 30.
    Those are lightweight serve and volley players without the overall firepower of Sampras or Becker, nor the skill level or athleticsm of Edberg.

    Even more comical though is the idea you can conclude somehow Federer thrives against serve/volley players. How can you know this when Federer hasnt even faced serve/volley players (other than the ones mentioned he fared mediocre against). I can see someone saying that for Hewitt who exceled vs serve and volley players from 99-2002, but not Federer. It is a guess at best for Federer.
     
    #56
  7. Monsieur_DeLarge

    Monsieur_DeLarge Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    May 31, 2009
    Messages:
    492
    Purely my opinion, but I reckon Sampras at his best ('99?) would have beaten Federer in 2003, 2009, and 2012. Federer at his best ('05-'07) would have beaten Sampras in 1993 and 2000. I also reckon Federer's best was slightly better than Sampras', but that Pete's average standard during his reign was slightly higher than Roger's.

    I couldn't pick between them, not on grass. I'm quite happy to say they're as good as each other and leave it at that.


    Regards,
    MDL
     
    #57
  8. helloworld

    helloworld Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    4,670
    There are 3 contenders; Federer, Sampras, and Laver. I still think Pete at his best has the highest level of play on grass ever. He was peerless during his reign, and the main reason was because of the serve.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UZztuyjbU8
     
    #58
  9. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Why is nobody mentioning Gonzales. The guy was the best grass courter in the World for about 9 years, basically all the years he was best player he was best grass courter (which is mostly all that was played on back then) .
     
    #59
  10. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,374
    Gonzalez had most of his triumphs on indoor courts, for instance his 8 US pros at Cleveland. I assume that he would have won a ton of US champs on Forest Hills grass. At Australian and British lawn i am not that sure. Segdman and Hoad would have challenged him severely there in the 50s.
     
    #60
  11. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Actually, The Rocket is far better than sliced bread.
     
    #61
  12. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    ...fedrulz, pool christensen,nadalthequeendrama and so on...
     
    #62
  13. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,547
    Gonzales - Sedgman and Hoad

    You are right that Segdman and Hoad were his greatest threats on Grass. Gonzales did win two Tournament of Champions at Forest Hills on grass though.
     
    #63
  14. TheFifthSet

    TheFifthSet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2009
    Messages:
    2,356
    Lol seriously? Most if not all those guys you mentioned seem like fair and good posters to me. And krosero isn't even a Federer fan! (well he might very well be, but he seems pretty neutral in the whole Federer fan/Nadal fan wars).
     
    #64
  15. Rhino

    Rhino Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2005
    Messages:
    7,474
    Location:
    South of London, west of Moscow
    So because there were twice as many (or three times as many) grass court tournaments back in the day, that is supposed to count against Federer and Sampras?
    With the shortest grass court season in history, Federer has been able to rack up 7 grass court slams, 12 titles in all. Until the early 1970s, the majority of tennis tournaments were played on grass, including three out of the four Grand Slams, so of course the oldies had more grass court titles.
     
    #65
  16. Blocker

    Blocker Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2012
    Messages:
    536
    Location:
    Melbourne
    I will say this with a straight face.

    Pit Sampras at his peak against any other grass GOAT contender at his peak, on yesteryear's Wimbledon grass, and Sampras wins in straight sets. You read right. Straight sets!
     
    #66
  17. Rhino

    Rhino Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2005
    Messages:
    7,474
    Location:
    South of London, west of Moscow
    Even Richard Krajicek could take down Sampras at his peak. Federer 2004 > 2006 would beat peak Pete 19 times out of 20.
     
    #67
  18. World Beater

    World Beater Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,751
    LOL

    no need to be a GOAT contender.

    All it took was one-time slammer Krajicek.

    And to be honest it wasn't even that huge of a surprise. Krajicek had a great h-h against pete before that match.
     
    #68
  19. monfed

    monfed Guest

    For fast grass,I pick Sampras(game's almost built for it just like Ralph on clay). For post 2001 grass, it's Federer.

    Overall, Federer wins it because he's more accomplished and he did beat Sampras at his own game in Wimby 01'.
     
    #69
  20. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,346
    '96 wasn't necessarily "peak" Sampras in terms of his overall play. . Take '99 Wimbledon final Sampras for peak. There were some years during Pete's run at wimbledon where he was more "peaking" then others.
     
    #70
  21. helloworld

    helloworld Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    4,670
    Even bums like Berdych and Tsonga can beat Fed. More like Pete would win 19 times out of 20. ;)
     
    #71
  22. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,346
    Pete's highest level on grass>>> Fed's highest level. Someone show ANYWHERES where Fed's level was as high as Pete's was at the 99 wimbledon finals. I would love to see it:)


    I would put that level Pete was at there against anyone's "peak play" on any surface
     
    #72
  23. The Moonballer

    The Moonballer New User

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2012
    Messages:
    35
    ****** :lol:
     
    #73
  24. Towser83

    Towser83 Legend

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    9,496
    I see a pattern with your posts...
     
    #74
  25. MTF07

    MTF07 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    775
    2003 semis and finals, 2005 finals.
     
    #75
  26. Towser83

    Towser83 Legend

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    9,496
    Have you seen enough of Laver's wins on grass to compare him to Pete? Or are you just putting him in because of numbers, but ignoring the numbers enough to put Pete as number one?

    I totally agree with you. It's just a bit ridiculous when people say "it's so and so, no contest!" It's too hard to compare players from different eras.

    Though 9-7 in the 5th is a lot tighter than 6-2 in the 5th, so Fed just as easily could have been 3-0 on grass, and more if Nadal had faced him in 2004, and 2005 as well. Also another injury in 2007? Nice touch.
     
    #76
  27. Towser83

    Towser83 Legend

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    9,496
    Anyway in my opinion, Federer is the best Wimbledon champion, but as grass court ability goes it's not that easy.Fed, Sampras, Laver are all in there, impossible to compare eras
     
    #77
  28. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,346

    I've seen quite a few Laver matches on youtube. Impossible to compare wood era to graphite to the poly string eras but to me Sampras' game was tailor made for grass (take nothing away from Laver or Federer of course).

    One thing I think Sampras could do that the others couldn't (at least to the same degree) is dominate grass in any era under any circumstance you threw at him. Be it poly strings, graphite or wood

    He had the baseline game,power, precision, serve and volley( Fed's was not as good of a volleyer or with the touch sampras had at the net). Fed would be shanking quite a few shots with the wood and he just isn't as comfortable coming into the net (which is a hinderance in the wood era). I see Sampras the modern day Pancho on grass. (who also has a claim for grass court GOAT but I haven't seen much of Pancho to make an opinion on him. But I've heard the stories and seen his numbers which were crazy as well)

    Feds the best hard court player Ive seen overall (between slow and fast, though I dont necessarily believe hes the best fast hard court player ever, but the best between both).. I will give him that. But still Pete WAS grass in many ways. His game was perfect for it.. Built for it.
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2012
    #78
  29. piece

    piece Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,403
    Good picks.

    A number of his matches in 2006 are contenders too (e.g. his semifinal against Bjorkman) but he was playing more from the baseline that year, less all-court.
     
    #79
  30. Towser83

    Towser83 Legend

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    9,496
    Well I respect your opinion and I don't agree or dissagree. I can't decide, as you say string and racquet technology has changed a lot. Plus grass slowing down early in Federer's career - I think he could have been a much better volleyer had the grass stayed fast and he might have stuck with serve and volley. I do think Sampras looked possibly the most natural on grass of any player, but I think Federer being more of an all courter could have maybe adapated to different grass courts a bit better as people say in Laver's day the grass courts played different from one another. There are a lot of variables.

    I've heard crazy stories about how good pancho was too, but as you say it's difficult to find enough footage to truly judge.
     
    #80
  31. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,230
    But in 2006 Bjorkman said Federer was better on grass.
     
    #81
  32. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    While Boris Becker said Sampras was better on grass. Becker's opinion >>>>>>>> Bjorkman's. John McEnroe who has called Federer the overall GOAT, still says Sampras at his best would beat Federer at his on any faster court, not just grass (so obviously grass that much moreso).
     
    #82
  33. rafafan20

    rafafan20 Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    964
    Location:
    USA
    Pete the chimp
     
    #83
  34. cc0509

    cc0509 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2010
    Messages:
    14,756
    Yet Sampras was not able to win a slam on grass past age 29 beating players a generation younger than him the way Federer was able to do at 31 this year so Federer really has surpassed Sampras on grass. There is no question that if both were in their primes their grass h2h would be very close. Hard to pick a winner.
     
    #84
  35. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Both have 7 Wimbledons and there are no other grass tournament that matters these days besides Wimbledon, so it is really completely up to personal opinion who is better. Federer hasnt surpassed Sampras on grass unless he wins an 8th. One could say Sampras carried his dominance on grass until he was 29 (he won his 4th Wimbledon in a row and 7th in 8 years 1 month shy of his 29th birthday) while Federer couldnt carry his that far.
     
    #85
  36. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,114
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    As an amateur, Gonzales won the 1948 and 1949 US Championships on grass. As a professional, Gonzales won the 1957 and 1958 Tournament of Champions on grass. All 4 of these tournaments were at Forest Hills, New York. In the 1950s, the most lucrative and profitable parts of the professional circuit were the big head-to-head tours, particularly for the best amateur player who had just turned professional to face the best professional player. Gonzales was dominant on these tours from 1954-1961, and he added big tournaments along with these when he played them.
     
    #86
  37. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,230
    The difference was Bjorkman played both Sampras and Federer at Wimbledon. After he lost to Fed in 06, he was ask who was a better grass player and he pick Federer. It's nice to hear Becker's input, but he doesn't know what is like on court with Federer.
     
    #87
  38. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,230
    This is the same argument use for Connors at the US Open. He gets extra credits for longevity and results during his past prime years than Sampras and Federer. So if it applies for Connors, it should applies to Federer at Wimbledon too.
     
    #88
  39. Rhino

    Rhino Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2005
    Messages:
    7,474
    Location:
    South of London, west of Moscow
    I said Federer 2004 > 2006, not Federer 2010 > 2011.
     
    #89
  40. MTF07

    MTF07 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    775
    Yeah, John McEnroe, who considers Nadal to be the best volleyer in the game. Yeah, his opinions have proven to be so credible.
     
    #90
  41. Feather

    Feather Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,520
    Location:
    Bangalore, India

    Roger Federer is an attacking player like Pete. Pete had the luxury of playing on fast grass at Wimbledon while Roger plays on a slowed down grass which helps retrievers more. If Pete won four Wimbledons in a row then Roger got five in a row. Roger also has played more finals. Roger didn't have QF exit during his prime like Pete had in 1996. Roger's first QF exit was when he was almost 29
     
    #91
  42. Sabratha

    Sabratha G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    12,171
    Location:
    Australia
    Federer is simply more consistent with his results.
     
    #92
  43. cc0509

    cc0509 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2010
    Messages:
    14,756
    It is a very close race no doubt about it, but I have to put Federer slightly ahead of Sampras because at Wimbledon Federer's stats are slightly better (W-L ratio, winning percentage, etc.) You can say what you want but Federer was the guy who was able to win Wimbledon past age 30, Sampras did not. As I said, Federer is slightly ahead of Sampras in the stats there but the reality is, if both were in their primes it would be a tight race I am sure.
     
    #93
  44. helloworld

    helloworld Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    4,670
    Sampras' Prime > Federer's Prime. With that said, Federer has been the more consistent player throughout the career, and still plays great tennis at age 30+, while Sampras was already retired.
     
    #94
  45. Blocker

    Blocker Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2012
    Messages:
    536
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Winning a Davis Cup adds to your GOATness. Why you knocking the DC? See this is what the neutral fans cringe about when he/shes a comment such as this. Once upon a time, the top players played DC and took it very seriously, sometimes at the expense of their slam/tournament win tally. These days, winning slams seems to be the only measure of GOATness for some around here. Yet a former champion who, at the expense of his personal career, had to go into hostile territory, play on a foreign surface in front of a hostile crowd, and still hauled his team/country over the line doesn't count for much because it's 'only' DC. What a shallow point of view to have. Just pathetic. Refer to the "Why GOAT does not exist" thread.
     
    #95
  46. Blocker

    Blocker Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2012
    Messages:
    536
    Location:
    Melbourne
    RK got Pete once. Had they met again at W, Pete would have tore him a new one. Revenge is a very powerful motivator.

    In Pete's glory years at W, he lost to one player. RF has lost to more than one player at W in his glory years at W. So to suggest that RF would beat Sampras 19 times out of 20 is absurd. And anyway, RF would want to hope that Sampras does not get a few wins against Federer. Because we all know what happens to Fed's mind when someone beats him a few times don't we? Unlike Sampras, the aggressor who will come at you (eg getting RK back at the USO in 2000) Fed becomes a bit of a basket case. Sorry, not trolling, I have not made this up, just telling it as it is. It's actually happened.

    I reiterate, Sampras at his peak in straight sets against Fed at his peak.
    on 90s W CC.
     
    #96
  47. Goosehead

    Goosehead Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Messages:
    3,540
    Location:
    A bloke in Brighton, England.
    hahahahahah davis cup is about a team not one player..why not focus on sampras being wasted on his beloved wimbledon centre ct by federer, or losing to the mighty george bastl the next year..or not even winning the french open or being in the final EVER..even nadal managed to win his weakest majors the aust/u s open.
     
    #97
  48. Blocker

    Blocker Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2012
    Messages:
    536
    Location:
    Melbourne
    DC is about a team event? Oh really? You don't say. My point is, once upon a time it was taken very seriously by the players because the slams weren't the only thing in life. Ask McEnroe what he thought of DC. But these days, it's a distant 4th to slams, WTF/Olympic Gold and the 1,000s. This is why slams cannot be the only measure of greatness. In 1986, Pat Cash beat Stefan Edberg at Kooyong to help Australia win the DC. The DC final was played before the AO final which was also at Kooyong. They then met in the AO final about 3 weeks later and Edberg turned the tables. My point is, if this happened today, someone like Federer would not give anything away in the DC final because he doesn't want to jeopardise his precious slam count. Back in 1986, during the DC final, the last thing on Cash's mind was the AO, which was only a week away. He was giving it his all to win the DC for his country, at the expense of his own aspirations to win the AO. He basically won the DC off his own racquet too. But a team event right, shouldn't count towards greatness you think. You're a jonny come lately mate. I bet you also think that Apple Inc invented the first ever phone or that McDonalds invented the first ever burger.
     
    #98
  49. Goosehead

    Goosehead Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Messages:
    3,540
    Location:
    A bloke in Brighton, England.
    no he didnt "basically win the dc off his own racquet too"..stop hyperventilating and making things up..

    i do not dine at mcdonalds so im not interested...and apple inc were not around in 1876 so its a safe bet to say they didnt invent the 'first ever phone'..theres no need to be bitter about sampras being pushed out by federer..theres more to tennis than slams 'mate', just ask sampras..oh no he said "its all about the slams" didnt he, oh well..diddums, ok then..you big johnny-come-lately..'mate'.

    however, congrats to pat cash for winning the davis cup all on his own...(basically)













































    "
     
    #99
  50. merlinpinpin

    merlinpinpin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,553
    If you really want to go there, you can't possibly imagine that Sampras should ever get one single measly vote vs Federer on grass ability, as he lost 100% of the matches they played against each other, and on grass, at his favorite venue where he was a four-time defending champion, no less.

    So, Sampras definitely out of grass-court-GOATness contention as Federer owns him body and soul on that surface. Agreed?
     

Share This Page