Greatest Grass Court Player of All Time.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by TMF

But in 2006 Bjorkman said Federer was better on grass.

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).

[rafafan20]

Pete the chimp

[cc0509]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

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).

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.

[NadalAgassi]

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.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by urban

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.

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.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

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).

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.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by cc0509

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.

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.

[Rhino]

Originally Posted by helloworld

Even bums like Berdych and Tsonga can beat Fed. More like Pete would win 19 times out of 20.

I said Federer 2004 > 2006, not Federer 2010 > 2011.

[MTF07]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

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).

Yeah, John McEnroe, who considers Nadal to be the best volleyer in the game. Yeah, his opinions have proven to be so credible.

[Feather]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

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.

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

[Sabratha]

Originally Posted by Feather

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

Federer is simply more consistent with his results.

[cc0509]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

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.

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.

[helloworld]

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.

[Blocker]

Originally Posted by MTF07

LOL @ NO DAVIS CUP TITLES.

I thought you were being serious.

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.

[Blocker]

Originally Posted by Rhino

Even Richard Krajicek could take down Sampras at his peak. Federer 2004 > 2006 would beat peak Pete 19 times out of 20.

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.

[Goosehead]

Originally Posted by Blocker

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.

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.

[Blocker]

Originally Posted by Goosehead

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.

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.

[Goosehead]

Originally Posted by Blocker

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.

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)













































"

[merlinpinpin]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

He also came close to beating Fed in 2007 as well while being injured.. Nadal could very well be 2-1 vs. Fed on grass right now (Probably even better then that if Fed had to deal with Nadal in 2009 and 2010 as well)

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?

[merlinpinpin]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

While Boris Becker said Sampras was better on grass. Becker's opinion >>>>>>>> Bjorkman's.

This is actually quite debatable. Bjorkman has a huge advantage in this--he played both, while Becker obviously hasn't.

So you might easily say that, on this particular matter, Bjorkman's opinion >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Becker's (it's in a totally different league, actually, as Bjorkman *was* there on court against them both, Becker just watched Federer on TV while eating popcorn).