The Greatest Hard Court Player of the open era for you

[fed_rulz]

Federer seems to be b!tch slapping others (especially Sampras) in this poll, it's not even funny . I can't believe there are morons who offer convoluted reasons for why Sampras (still) should be ahead of Federer, based purely on what-ifs. Seems like Petetards are ones who like to indulge in a lot of revisionist history..

 

[Biscuitmcgriddleson]

good luck having Petetards explain that anomaly, especially when he's constantly being hyped up as the "greatest server of all time" over guys like Karlovic who served 78 aces on dirt!!

And then *******s become Petetards also. It's a mad world.

 

[Biscuitmcgriddleson]

The Sampras serve is a greater and even more effective weapon than the Federer forehand. Keep in mind the serve is the most important single stroke in tennis, especialy mens tennis. The best serve ever > the best forehand ever (and the former is even more certainly true than the latter anyway).

People hype up Sampras' serve. 14 majors doesn't mean his serve won 14 majors. It means Sampras won 14 majors. I am much more impressed by the serves of Karlovic, Isner, and Roddick. Pete didn't win because of his serve, he won because of his serve and accompanying tools. If you give Sampras any of those three serves, it's unlikely that his career achievements would decrease. On the other hand if you gave any of those three Pete's game(sans serve), their careers would have improved without a doubt.

One thing that he needs credit for is that he was able to dig deep and get aces when he needed them.

 

[Biscuitmcgriddleson]

That's the difference - he didn't stop attacking the net in 03-04 on a consistent basis because he felt more comfortable from the baseline but because he was forced to do so. I believe his net game prior to 2003 was on par with his ground game.

http://bit.ly/KTdEMY

I can't find the quote I was looking for, but I believe he had an attitude of why S&V if I don't have to.

http://bit.ly/ITadCG

After 05, he seemed to just stay back for the most part.

 

[Limpinhitter]

You also didn't succeed in understanding what you wrote.

I think I'm the best judge of what I wrote.

You assume that one has to be a great volleyer or net player to be tagged as a "fast court player". This is your problem. You just can't fathom that a professional can be an aggressive player without having the ability to hit a good volley (not that Federer sucks at the net, quite the contrary).

Might as well say that Agassi is a pusher just because he can't hit a decent volley.

I still haven't succeeded in explaining it to you. I don't assume anything of the kind.

 

[Limpinhitter]

The Sampras serve is a greater and even more effective weapon than the Federer forehand. Keep in mind the serve is the most important single stroke in tennis, especialy mens tennis. The best serve ever > the best forehand ever (and the former is even more certainly true than the latter anyway).

Yes, but, as I've said many times, Federer gets to use his forehand on both serve and return games.

 

[Sid_Vicious]

I've seen plenty of Federer matches from the early 00's. He's never been a great volleyer or net player. Further, believe it or not, the forehand isn't the only method of attack. So, what kind of forehands did Mac and Edberg hit?

I do agree on this point. Federer was never a great volleyer, but he was a competent net player.

I think Henman said before his match with Fed at WIM 2011, that, Federer was no "Rafter or Sampras", but he was a decent volleyer.

 

[OddJack]

Oh Laurie, what were you thinking posting this poll

 

[NadalAgassi]

People hype up Sampras' serve. 14 majors doesn't mean his serve won 14 majors. It means Sampras won 14 majors. I am much more impressed by the serves of Karlovic, Isner, and Roddick. Pete didn't win because of his serve, he won because of his serve and accompanying tools. If you give Sampras any of those three serves, it's unlikely that his career achievements would decrease. On the other hand if you gave any of those three Pete's game(sans serve), their careers would have improved without a doubt.

One thing that he needs credit for is that he was able to dig deep and get aces when he needed them.

LOL at the idea Roddick or Isner have a better serve than Sampras. If Roddick's serve had anywhere near the disguise, placement, variety, or raw power and heavieness (which isnt just speed) of Sampras's, Federer wouldnt be able to return it nearly as easily as he does. You do realize some people have tried to argue Federer has a better overall serve than Roddick, probably wrongly and definitely wrongly IMO, but still it is telling some people even think that. Nobody would every try and argue Federer has a better serve than Sampras for instance.

Karlovic and Ivanisevic are the only players in the Open Era who have a serve anywhere near Sampras, however Sampras has a much better 2nd serve than Goran and is a much better pressure server than Karlovic. Just look at Karlovic's tiebreak record which is ridiculous for someone with a serve like his.

Also according to this forums views Sampras wasnt anywhere near a top baseliner and wasnt even the best volleyer, so based on that how else did he win 14 majors other than having a GOAT serve.

 

[Laurie]

Oh Laurie, what were you thinking posting this poll

That's a good question. What amazes me is how certain guys are prepared to run circles around each other day after day, week after week and perhaps year after year, arguing the same points over and over again, neither side giving way whatsoever, all pretty incredible to be honest.

But in between that madness, there are some interesting points made by posters. The only thing I would say is that the result of the poll does not reflect the abilities of 5 of the 6 guys on there at all, I thought the results might have been more spread out.

 

[tennis_pro]

I still haven't succeeded in explaining it to you. I don't assume anything of the kind.

Oh yes you did. Read your quote again:

"Federer's game is not best suited for faster courts. He's not a great volleyer or net player."

And then again. One more time.

One can assume that having a great volley (or being great at the net) is a condition you have to fulfill in order to be considered an attacking player, at least based on your criteria. Now I'm telling you that this is the biggest bu****it I've read on TW (apart from NSK claiming that Nadal figured Djokovic out after losing to him in Australia this year).

Del Potro, Soderling, Agassi, Federer, Djokovic in aggressive mode aren't attacking players just because they can't hit a Edberesque volley. Is that what you want to say?

 

[Biscuitmcgriddleson]

LOL at the idea Roddick or Isner have a better serve than Sampras. If Roddick's serve had anywhere near the disguise, placement, variety, or raw power and heavieness (which isnt just speed) of Sampras's, Federer wouldnt be able to return it nearly as easily as he does. You do realize some people have tried to argue Federer has a better overall serve than Roddick, probably wrongly and definitely wrongly IMO, but still it is telling some people even think that. Nobody would every try and argue Federer has a better serve than Sampras for instance.

Karlovic and Ivanisevic are the only players in the Open Era who have a serve anywhere near Sampras, however Sampras has a much better 2nd serve than Goran and is a much better pressure server than Karlovic. Just look at Karlovic's tiebreak record which is ridiculous for someone with a serve like his.

Also according to this forums views Sampras wasnt anywhere near a top baseliner and wasnt even the best volleyer, so based on that how else did he win 14 majors other than having a GOAT serve.

So you're saying these players skills outside of the serve are all better than Pete's?

You know why Karlovic has that tie break record? All he can do is serve.

It's amazing. Federer has awful defense, a **** poor backhand, and volleys worse than Nadal based on the stats, yet he sill has this. All of this is according to posters on here so it has to be fact right?

Most GS titles
1. Roger Federer 16
2. Pete Sampras 14
3. Björn Borg 11
4. Rafael Nadal 10
5. Jimmy Connors 8
= Ivan Lendl 8
= Andre Agassi 8
8. John McEnroe 7
= Mats Wilander 7
10. Stefan Edberg 6
Boris Becker 6

GS finals
1. Roger Federer 23
2. Ivan Lendl 19
3. Pete Sampras 18
4. Björn Borg 16
5. Jimmy Connors 15
= Andre Agassi 15
7. Rafael Nadal 13
8. John McEnroe 11
= Mats Wilander 11
= Stefan Edberg 11

Consecutive GS finals
1. Roger Federer 10
2. Roger Federer 8
3. Andre Agassi 4
= Rod Laver 4
5. Jimmy Connors 3
= Björn Borg 3
= Björn Borg 3
= Björn Borg 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= John McEnroe 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= Mats Wilander 3
= Jim Courier 3
= Jim Courier 3
= Pete Sampras 3
= Rafael Nadal 3

GS semi-finals
1. Jimmy Connors 31
2. Ivan Lendl 28
= Roger Federer 28
4. Andre Agassi 26
5. Pete Sampras 23
6. John McEnroe 19
= Stefan Edberg 19
8. Boris Becker 18
9. Björn Borg 17
10. Rafael Nadal 15

Consecutive GS semi-finals
1. Roger Federer 23
2. Ivan Lendl 10
3. Ivan Lendl 6
4. Boris Becker 5
= Novak Djokovic 5
= Nadal 5
7. Rod Laver 4
8. Tony Roche 4
= John McEnroe 4
= Andre Agassi 4
= Jim Courer 4


All Four Slams Per Year
Rod Laver 1969

Three Slams Per Year
Jimmy Connors 1974
Mats Wilander 1988
Roger Federer 2004
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007
Rafael Nadal 2010

All Four Finals Per Year
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007
Roger Federer 2009
Rod Laver 1969

All Four Semi-finals Per Year
Rod Laver 1969
Ivan Lendl 1987
Roger Federer 2005
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007
Roger Federer 2008
Rafael Nadal 2008
Roger Federer 2009


Most consecutive matches won at one Grand Slam event:
1. Björn Borg (Wimbledon), 41
2. Roger Federer (Wimbledon), 40
= Roger Federer (US Open), 40
4. Pete Sampras (Wimbledon), 31
= Rafael Nadal (French Open), 31

Other Stuff:

Year-End Championships
1. Roger Federer 5
= Ivan Lendl 5
= Pete Sampras 5
4. Ilie Nastase 3
= John McEnroe 3
= Boris Becker 3

Most Weeks at #1
1. Pete Sampras 286
2. Roger Federer 285
3. Ivan Lendl 270
4. Jimmy Connors 268
5. John McEnroe 170
6. Björn Borg 109
7. Rafael Nadal 102
8. Andre Agassi 101
9. Lleyton Hewitt 80
10. Stefan Edberg 72

Consecutive Weeks at #1
1. Roger Federer (1) 237
2. Jimmy Connors (1) 160
3. Ivan Lendl (1) 157
4. Pete Sampras (1) 102
5. Jimmy Connors (2) 84
6. Pete Sampras (2) 82
7. Ivan Lendl (2) 80
8. Lleyton Hewitt (1) 75
9. John McEnroe (1) 58
10. Rafael Nadal (1) 56

Year End #1
1. Sampras 6
2. Federer 5
3. Borg 4
4. Connors 3
= Lendl 3
= McEnroe 3


Highest Season Winning Percentage
1. John McEnroe (1984) .965 82–3
2. Jimmy Connors (1974) .959 93–4
3. Roger Federer (2005) .953 81–4
4. Roger Federer (2006) .948 92–5
5. Björn Borg (1979) .933 84–6
6. Ivan Lendl (1986) .925 74–6
7. Roger Federer (2004) .925 74–6
8. Ivan Lendl (1985) .923 84–7
9. Ivan Lendl (1982) .922 106–9
10. Björn Borg (1980) .921 70–6

 

[tennis_pro]

So you're saying these players skills outside of the serve are all better than Pete's?

You know why Karlovic has that tie break record? All he can do is serve.

It's amazing. Federer has awful defense, a **** poor backhand, and volleys worse than Nadal based on the stats, yet he sill has this.

Most GS titles...(...)

Weak era

I have to say, arguing with trolls is fruitless but very enjoyable. You just never get bored of pwning them and at the same time they never get bored of being pwned.

 

[Biscuitmcgriddleson]

Weak era

I have to say, arguing with trolls is fruitless but very enjoyable. You just never get bored of pwning them and at the same time they never get bored of being pwned.

It's a mad world. But LOL at NadullAgassi saying that Sampras only had a serve and it was that serve and no other part of his game that helped him win his titles. I GUESS RODDICK HAS A SUPERIOR ALL AROUND GAME TO SAMPRAS!

You learn new stuff every day.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Oh yes you did. Read your quote again:

"Federer's game is not best suited for faster courts. He's not a great volleyer or net player."

And then again. One more time.

One can assume that having a great volley (or being great at the net) is a condition you have to fulfill in order to be considered an attacking player, at least based on your criteria. Now I'm telling you that this is the biggest bu****it I've read on TW (apart from NSK claiming that Nadal figured Djokovic out after losing to him in Australia this year).

Del Potro, Soderling, Agassi, Federer, Djokovic in aggressive mode aren't attacking players just because they can't hit a Edberesque volley. Is that what you want to say?

Try as I might, I still haven't explained it to you. I have never said that you have to have a great volley to be considered an attacking player, you have not read any such thing on TW, and there is no way to reasonably infer that from anything I've written.

 

[kiki]

And the problem with you(and kiki) is you believe tennis and other sports get worsen over the years.

Not at all, some get better, some worsen.Tennis is in my second list.

 

[kiki]

None of these players are as good as Fed, except arguably Guga, but he was inconsistent.

And since you claimed to have watched tennis, you should know better that Fed can adapt in both environments. Actually, slowing down the court hurts his game(suitable for grinder like Nadal, Ferrer..), but he was able adapt new challenge, unlike some players like Roddick who likes fast court couldn't keep up with players who likes to grind. The idea of Fed benefitted from a slow court is a myth...the guy can thrives on fast surfaces and develop a s/v style in any era. Of course I don't expect you to know this.

On clay, Bruguera won 2 RG, not once...plus Montecarlo and many other titles...

 

[kiki]

Where's the option "Rod Laver", for kiki and Limpinhitter?

Good question¡¡¡ yes, where is it?

 

[kiki]

Lol dude I know that. It's just that Laver has so much talent in his pinky, according to kiki, that he would have won all the imaginary matches against HC greats like Lendl, Sampras, Federer and Mac.

Yes, he had so much talent in his pinky...but he certainly would suffer several loses on HC against the likes that you mention.He´d also beat them some times, you know.

I´d like to see Connors vs Laver on HC, both at their prime.Jimmy was an exceptional hard court player, and so was also Agassi.Both vs Laver would be the matches I´d like to see on HC.

 

[kiki]

That's wrong! Laver won over 30 hard court events. As a pro he also won on wood, carpet, canvas, and every other surface the pros had to play on before open tennis, totalling 200 career titles. What Laver did was more impressive than what Federer did, IMO, with one exception - Federer won 3 out of 4 majors for 3 out of 4 years - 2004-2007. That's one major away from a Grand Slam, 3 times in 4 years. The only major he couldn't win in that stretch was the French Open. Laver might have done better if he was given a chance. But, that's a bit of speculation.

He also played on a parking soil and on a highway ( according to his book, crowded with military after a Coup D´Etat)

 

[prosealster]

federer no contest

 

[kiki]

Don't forget, in Laver's era there was no global warming yet. Have to account for that too.

Yep¡¡ even in that sense, it was a great era.

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

No global warming means players not having chairs to sit on during changeovers was no big deal. Weather didn't take out as much from them.

 

[coloskier]

It all depends if you equate "Hard Court tennis" with "Serve and Volley tennis". If yes, then Sampras. If no, then Federer.

 

[TMF]

Not at all, some get better, some worsen.Tennis is in my second list.

In your dream world, yes.

 

[chrischris]

This poll is a bit redundant in my humble view.

 

[TMF]

On clay, Bruguera won 2 RG, not once...plus Montecarlo and many other titles...

Overall the experts have Sergi ranked below Federer.

http://www2.lequipe.fr/redirect-v6/...23_205342_le-jury-de-l-equipe-vote-nadal.html

Anyway, this thread is about the greatest hc player and Roger is the best.