The Greatest Hard Court Player of the open era for you

[Laurie]

You might recall I did an article on the greatest hard court players of the open era two years ago, which proved very popular. I also managed to have it published on Eurosport tramlines last September which was nice. For those who never saw it, article is here http://burnstennis.blogspot.co.uk/20...-open-era.html

The guys I chose were Agassi, Federer, Lendl, McEnroe, Connors, Sampras. All of these players have the credentials to be considered top man. I want to know who you consider top man and why, I've put a poll in so you can choose.

I just want to add one thing about Federer, a lot of his titles on hardcourts have come indoors, the other guys won most of their indoor titles on carpet, so the distinction is slightly more pronounced. I accept that San Jose and Memphis were on indoor hardcourts but they were exceptions no?
__________________

[tennis_pro]

Is this even a question?

Federer has the most Australians, US Opens (5 conescutive!), WTF's in history. Most titles on hard courts, most IW, Cincinnati, 14 MS on hard courts (2nd to Agassi's 16), the longest winning streak, most HC titles in a season. I mean seriously what does Sampras, Connors or McEnroe have that Federer hasn't on HC?

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by tennis_pro

Is this even a question?

Federer has the most Australians, US Opens (5 conescutive!), WTF's in history. Most titles on hard courts, most IW, Cincinnati, 14 MS on hard courts (2nd to Agassi's 16), the longest winning streak, most HC titles in a season. I mean seriously what does Sampras, Connors or McEnroe have that Federer hasn't on HC?

Since the title is "best" not most accomplished. Just like how Borg has no stat in his favor over Nadal on clay at this point, and is behind in most, yet some still want to argue Borg as the clay court GOAT over Nadal. Just like how Sampras has more Wimbledons titles than Federer, while playing on real grass vs a far tougher grass court field, and yet Federer fans still want to argue him as better on grass.

[tennis_pro]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Since the title is "best" not most accomplished. Just like how Borg has no stat in his favor over Nadal on clay at this point, and is behind in most, yet some still want to argue Borg as the clay court GOAT over Nadal. Just like how Sampras has more Wimbledons titles than Federer, while playing on real grass vs a far tougher grass court field, and yet Federer fans still want to argue him as better on grass.

So it's Federer's fault that the speed has decreased, now I heard everything. One might think that his record is even more valuable as he had to go through a bunch of clay courters on this joke of a grass court while Sampras could serve his way through his titles against grass giants like Henman and Ivanisevic.

The funny part is that the only advantage Sampras has over Federer is the number of Wimbledons. If Federer wins 1 more title, he's got the same no of Wimbledons but more finals, more victories/finals in a row, most titles (already he has won more than Sampras in his career), a winning streak of 65 or something.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by tennis_pro

Is this even a question?

Federer has the most Australians, US Opens (5 conescutive!), WTF's in history. Most titles on hard courts, most IW, Cincinnati, 14 MS on hard courts (2nd to Agassi's 16), the longest winning streak, most HC titles in a season. I mean seriously what does Sampras, Connors or McEnroe have that Federer hasn't on HC?

much tougher competition

[tennis_pro]

Originally Posted by kiki

much tougher competition

Sampras' tough grass competion is a myth.

[Sid_Vicious]

In my opinion, Federer.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by tennis_pro

So it's Federer's fault that the speed has decreased, now I heard everything. One might think that his record is even more valuable as he had to go through a bunch of clay courters on this joke of a grass court

You mean clay courters like Andy Roddick who he played in 3 of his Wimbledon finals .

[NamRanger]

Originally Posted by tennis_pro

Sampras' tough grass competion is a myth.

So Goran isn't tough competition? Even as big of a headcase he was he's still stronger on grass than the vast majority of opponents Federer faced. Guys like Richard K, Agassi, and Rafter were also tough. Not to mention dangerous floaters/specialists like Henman who were capable of beating very good players on grass.

[NadalAgassi]

Sampras faced Becker, Edberg, Agassi, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Rafter, Philippoussis, Martin, Henman on grass.

Federer faced Nadal, Roddick, and Hewitt.

Ivanisevic is probably only 4th or 5th best of that first group, while Roddick is 2nd best of the second group. Yet Ivanisevic is a much better grass court player than Roddick, especialy post Gilbert Roddick.


Anyway this is a thread on hard courts, not grass. I would give Sampras the edge on Federer on fast hard courts. Their results are similar, but Sampras's game was just bigger and more explosive and that is what wins on that surface. Slower hard courts Federer would have the overall edge. So overall it is close between them. McEnroe at his best probably was better than anyone but didnt sustain it long enough. Connors didnt have as many opportunities on hard courts unfortunately. Lendl was great but too prone to getting overpowered and beaten when up against other tough opponents.

[DjokovicForTheWin]

No contest, easily Federer. Sampras is not even second.

[tennis_pro]

Originally Posted by NamRanger

So Goran isn't tough competition? Even as big of a headcase he was he's still stronger on grass than the vast majority of opponents Federer faced. Guys like Richard K, Agassi, and Rafter were also tough. Not to mention dangerous floaters/specialists like Henman who were capable of beating very good players on grass.

I don't see how Ivanisevic is that much tougher than Roddick.
Krajicek? He played out of his skin once in 1996 and that's it. He didn't even get to play Sampras apart from that 1 occasion at Wimbledon.
Rafter? The first time he won a 4th round at Wimbledon was in 1999 (he didn't even face Sampras that year), played Pete once in 2000 when Sampras had to rely on a choke in the final to win.
Henman? Please...

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by tennis_pro

I don't see how Ivanisevic is that much tougher than Roddick.
Krajicek? He played out of his skin once in 1996 and that's it. He didn't even get to play Sampras apart from that 1 occasion at Wimbledon.
Rafter? The first time he won a 4th round at Wimbledon was in 1999 (he didn't even face Sampras that year), played Pete once in 2000 when Sampras had to rely on a choke in the final to win.
Henman? Please...

Well Henman was only about the 9th best grass courter of the Sampras era so might as well compare him with who would be the 9th best of the Federer era. Who would that be, Sebastien Grosjean, Scheng Schalken, LOL! An old Henman beat a prime Federer twice in late 2003 and early 2004, and not even on grass, and reached the top 5 at age 30 in the Federer era, so he cant suck that much (or if he does that is even more telling).

[Sid_Vicious]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Sampras faced Becker, Edberg, Agassi, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Rafter, Philippoussis, Martin, Henman on grass.

Federer faced Nadal, Roddick, and Hewitt.

Ivanisevic is probably only 4th or 5th best of that first group, while Roddick is 2nd best of the second group. Yet Ivanisevic is a much better grass court player than Roddick, especialy post Gilbert Roddick.


Anyway this is a thread on hard courts, not grass. I would give Sampras the edge on Federer on fast hard courts. Their results are similar, but Sampras's game was just bigger and more explosive and that is what wins on that surface. Slower hard courts Federer would have the overall edge. So overall it is close between them. McEnroe at his best probably was better than anyone but didnt sustain it long enough. Connors didnt have as many opportunities on hard courts unfortunately. Lendl was great but too prone to getting overpowered and beaten when up against other tough opponents.

Can we really make a statement like this? A much better grass court player than Roddick?

It is important to note that Roddick, at the age of 18 , played a very competitive match against Ivanisevic in 2001, the year Goran won the title.

[tennis_pro]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Sampras faced Becker, Edberg, Agassi, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Rafter, Philippoussis, Martin, Henman on grass.

Federer faced Nadal, Roddick, and Hewitt.

Ivanisevic is probably only 4th or 5th best of that first group, while Roddick is 2nd best of the second group. Yet Ivanisevic is a much better grass court player than Roddick, especialy post Gilbert Roddick.


Anyway this is a thread on hard courts, not grass. I would give Sampras the edge on Federer on fast hard courts. Their results are similar, but Sampras's game was just bigger and more explosive and that is what wins on that surface. Slower hard courts Federer would have the overall edge. So overall it is close between them. McEnroe at his best probably was better than anyone but didnt sustain it long enough. Connors didnt have as many opportunities on hard courts unfortunately. Lendl was great but too prone to getting overpowered and beaten when up against other tough opponents.

That's what Sampras has built his grass legacy on - by having his fanboys claim that he faced Edberg at Wimbledon which luckily for Pete HE NEVER HAS.

[monfed]

Originally Posted by NamRanger

So Goran isn't tough competition? Even as big of a headcase he was he's still stronger on grass than the vast majority of opponents Federer faced. Guys like Richard K, Agassi, and Rafter were also tough. Not to mention dangerous floaters/specialists like Henman who were capable of beating very good players on grass.

Cmon Nam, can you say with a straight face that Henman would've beaten Peter at Wimby?

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by Sid_Vicious

Can we really make a statement like this? A much better grass court player than Roddick?

It is important to note that Roddick, at the age of 18 , played a very competitive match against Ivanisevic in 2001, the year Goran won the title.

Ivanisevic was a wild card for that tournament and Roddick was the heavy favorite to win that match but lost. Ivanisevic's serve was even a shadow of its 92-96 self in 2001. Ultimately if anything it is telling Ivanisevic could win a Wimbledon at the start of the Federer generation (Hewitt, Roddick, etc...)grass era while WAY past his prime, but couldnt do it during the Sampras era.

What does Roddick do better than prime Ivanisevic on grass? Serve? Definite no. Return? Even bigger no. Movement? Defininite no. Transition game or volleys? Obviously no. Maybe the forehand from 2004 to earlier, and that is it, and after 2004 definitely no here too. On hard courts Roddick is easily better overall and more consistent but Ivanisevic wasnt even a top 20 hard court player of the Sampras era anyway.

[tennis_pro]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Well Henman was only about the 9th best grass courter of the Sampras era so might as well compare him with who would be the 9th best of the Federer era. Who would that be, Sebastien Grosjean, Scheng Schalken, LOL! An old Henman beat a prime Federer twice in late 2003 and early 2004, and not even on grass, and reached the top 5 at age 30 in the Federer era, so he cant suck that much (or if he does that is even more telling).

2003-2004 is a period when Henman got his most consistent results, who cares he beat Federer once or twice, Federer was only starting to dominate. That doesn't change the fact that he's not a world beater. Name me the big wins he had in majors in his career. Beating teenage Federer at Wimbledon?

[DjokovicForTheWin]

Originally Posted by Sid_Vicious

Can we really make a statement like this? A much better grass court player than Roddick?

Of course you can't. But when one lacks a brain, all sorts of crazy things sputter out of the mouth.

[kiki]

This is about Hard not Grass, isn´t it? Why not discuss grass on another thread? First, which grass, old or new? then we can start off