Wimbledon Dream Match: Pete Sampras vs Novak Djokovic
- Thread starter lud
- Start date
Holmes
Hall of Fame
The fact that Pete won Wimbledon with a medical issue with his leg bordering on injury in 2000, essentially on one leg an hour into every match, is maybe the biggest testament to his greatness at the Slam and on grass. He wouldn't beat 2015 Novak with that form, but nevertheless, he might beat him with every other year's form.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Fed's serve was also good. 26 aces is not something he hit regularly during those days. His volleys were also great, way better than in the very next match with Henman, also very clutch. All in all way above his usual level at that time. Pete missed his famous slam dunk twice. All in all I see Fed playing closer to prime level there than Pete.
Last edited:
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Sampras from the final 1995 beats everyone, I may give Krajicek 96 QF some outsider chances, but peak level cannot be measured in ELO, it is even more useless than rankings.
Holmes
Hall of Fame
Does he take the first against 2004 Wimbledon final first set Roddick?
Sampras and other S&Vers would've much of a chance against Djokovic, he would pass them left and right.
Do you think Borg had chance against supreme S&Vers, such as Mac, Becker and Sampras? Well, Djokovic and Nadal were just like Borg, except they were a little better.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Borg had the best passing shots in the world during that time, Djokovic hasn't. And having a chance or beating the peak version are two different things. Djokovic's big strength of baseline play, stamina etc would not come much into play if Pete relentlessly attacks the net. Djoko's own serve is good but not great, neither is his net game. Of course his return is GOAT, but it wasn't enough for Agassi to beat Pete, so I don't think ot will for Djokovic.
Last edited:
travlerajm
Talk Tennis Guru
That, plus I think 2001 was the year that Pete discovered he liked to have a beer (or two) to relax after his matches.
Oh com'on, if Agassi could hang tough against Sampras! Then surely Borg could do better. And Djokovic and Nadal would do best as baseliners.
Sampras could defeat Agassi, but Djokovic and Nadal would do much better than Agassi.
Let me ask you this: do you think Sampras was heads and shoulders above Federer? If Sampras were dominant against Djokovic & Nadal, then he must be dominant against Federer! There's no if, and or but about it!
Last edited:
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Agassi could hang tough once with Pete in their 93 QF where both were injured and pre-prime. In 99, in next to the best form of his life he got destroyed in straights. And 95 Sampras os better than 99. And no, Pete is of course not heads and shoulders above Federer, Fed is more consistent but at their absolute best my money would still be on Pete on fast grass. Fed is better than both Djo and Ned though.
Razer
Legend
If Federer is not better than Djokodal on grass then how did Federer win 8 Wimbledons you troll ?
Lol
TheGoldenEra1990’s
Professional
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
He has more titles than both. Ok Nadal beat him in 2008 but peak vs peak Fed is still slightly better imho, way more consistent anyways. If we are talking 90s grass it is a no-brainer, Nadal would even struggle to reach Fed. As for Djoko: he would of course do way better than Ned, but the faster conditions get, the more it favors Fed.
Federer won eight WB's, but only 3 against Djokovic and Nadal. Djokodal won 7 WB's, five of which were against Federer and Nadal.
Razer
Legend
Federer and Djokovic are not of the same age for them to be judged on how many they won vs each other.
This is basic common sense which anyone with 3 digit IQ should have, please upgrade yourself before using funny logics to judge players on quality like this.
When players are 6 years apart then the older players is bound to have slams in his 20s without 2 of his younger rivals since most ppl win bulk of their slams in their 20s. So if the younger players are not in their prime then how the hell is he supposed to have lot of slams vs Fedal ?
Last edited:
Sure they are, Federer and Djokovic played the 2nd most number of slams, behind Nadal-Djokovic. Connors and Lendl are separated by 8 years, and they were of the same generation. Djokovic and Alcaraz are separated by 16 years, and as soon as Djokovic reaches the SF of any slam, he's a threat to win that slam, so they compete on an equal level.
As soon as Federer reached the SF of any slam, he was a threat to win, and he and any fellow semifinalist competed on an equal level. When Sinner defeated Djokovic at '24 AO, did you hear any Djokfan complain about their 12-year age difference. No, because they were competing for the same thing, a slam championship. If Djokovic feels he no longer can do it, he should just retire. Anyone with triple digit IQ would agree with that.
Nadal was only one year older than Djokovic, how come I never heard he was too young to be Federer's rival? The reason that Federer needed the age excuse was because he was an unfathomable 1-10 when facing #1 at slams. If he were, say, a more reasonable 3-8, you guys wouldn't need that excuse. Do you agree that 1-10 was unfathomable, given that he was #3 the majority of the time?
I don't recall his fans needing that excuse, even before '19 WB final. Now his fans need that handy excuse now everything was etched in stone.
As soon as Federer reached the SF of any slam, he was a threat to win, and he and any fellow semifinalist competed on an equal level. When Sinner defeated Djokovic at '24 AO, did you hear any Djokfan complain about their 12-year age difference. No, because they were competing for the same thing, a slam championship. If Djokovic feels he no longer can do it, he should just retire. Anyone with triple digit IQ would agree with that.
Nadal was only one year older than Djokovic, how come I never heard he was too young to be Federer's rival? The reason that Federer needed the age excuse was because he was an unfathomable 1-10 when facing #1 at slams. If he were, say, a more reasonable 3-8, you guys wouldn't need that excuse. Do you agree that 1-10 was unfathomable, given that he was #3 the majority of the time?
I don't recall his fans needing that excuse, even before '19 WB final. Now his fans need that handy excuse now everything was etched in stone.
Olli Jokinen
Hall of Fame
I’m 50 and think Djoker will take him out.
Razer
Legend
What a dumb reply !! Are you telling me Federer and Djokovic are of the same age?
You are giving me my same arguments (which I post 1000 times in other threads to Fedfans) on what a generation is to me when we are speaking of age. Do you even read properly or are you just trolling as usual?
Lendl and Connors being of same generation doesn't mean sh1t when we know Connors won most of his slams in 1970s while Lendl won in 1980s, it would be really lame to ask why Connors never won a lot in 80s when Lendl was dominating.
Do you get you the drift or do you wanna troll more ?
Federer is superior on Grass to that beggar Djokovic who had like 3 wimbledon in his 20s, that guy had to win 4 more in his 30s to reach the league of Sampras and Fed in numbers and yet you have the temerity to market him over Federer ? LOL ...
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
No, they aren't. The 1st serve and 2nd serve stats are wrong for slams from 92-99. They double counted aces and DFs.
Actual second serve points won % is higher for Sampras than what you see on official sites.
First serve points won% lower
nighthawkrr
Rookie
Pete would win. Especially with the improvements in PEDs, racket tech, etc.
Although Killer Beeman may pass them all.
Although Killer Beeman may pass them all.
