D
D
Deleted member 744633
Guest
2nd one in your pictures above- The King of grass.
The last one- the stuff that cows produce after eating the grass.
Antonio Puente
Hall of Fame
I guess Fed does have to somewhat share it.
Only one king of clay.
Only one king of clay.
D
Deleted member 744633
Guest
Have to agree with this one. Rafa's FO record is beyond ridiculous.
D
Deleted member 748597
Guest
Borg and Thiem.
TheGhostOfAgassi
Talk Tennis Guru
Snoop disagrees.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Antonio Puente
Hall of Fame
Prince and court jester.
K-H
Hall of Fame
Lol at Thiem.
Borg is good but when you realise rafa has won double the amount of RGs as him, it puts things into perspective regardless of how early borg retired.
Double is insane, its basically everything borg did there, Rafa did it, then did it again.
Antonio Puente
Hall of Fame
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
The term “King” has no plural in this context. There’s no such thing as dual Kings or co-rulers. On that basis, it can’t even be argued who the king of grass is. He has 8 Wimbledons and 19 grass titles. Nobody else is close to those numbers.
Last edited:
King No1e
G.O.A.T.
You win the internet today
Service Ace
Hall of Fame
Sampras
No King chokes the way Federer has against his two greatest rivals on his "best" surface.
No King chokes the way Federer has against his two greatest rivals on his "best" surface.
SamprasisGOAT
Hall of Fame
Sampras Sampras sampras
Bit of a pointless thread it’s so obvious
Bit of a pointless thread it’s so obvious
ChaelAZ
G.O.A.T.
Snoop disagrees.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thats funny.
+1000 Internet points for you.
Indeed, he chokes against George Bastl instead. But no idea what he does 7 years later (equivalent to Federer’s 2019).
DSH
Talk Tennis Guru
borg number one
Legend
Borg does have a much more impressive record at Wimbledon and on grass than Nadal. He won his first W title without losing a set in ‘76. That was on the faster grass as well. He also had a 41 match win streak at Wimbledon.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 744633
Guest
Standaa
G.O.A.T.
lmao
Service Ace
Hall of Fame
Good point. Federer would never lose that early in Wimbledon to a mug like Sergiy Stakhovsky, much less choke away championships points with his legacy on the line as if he was some all time Choke King like Coria.
The Stakhosvky thing is valid, but it was only one episode and contrary to Sampras he came back to reach many more finals after it.
The match points are no argument at all, because coming that close to winning is just what it is: One very small detail less great than winning. Strangely some people act as if it's worse than losing in the 1st round or even being retired for a long time. I doubt that Sampras would have the chance to choke against Djokovic with modern conditions/equipments because he wouldn’t make it Close.
D
Deleted member 744633
Guest
You just can't use the Bastl argument against Sampras because every top player loses at some point. So I fully expected the Stakhovsky retort
If the 'King' is the one with most titles, Federer it is. No argument there. But for me, the King is not the one with most titles. The reason most neutral fans lean toward Sampras being King on Grass is because in addtition to his fantastic accomplishments there, he was peerless. The only blemishes are occasional losses but if Nadal can be beaten at the FO in his prime (Soderling), it's hardly surprising that Sampras in his prime can be beaten on grass! However, nobody in his right mind could claim Federer is peerless on grass considering he is getting outright dominated by Djokovic time and again at Wimbledon. How can anyone nominate him King?
The age factor is used by Federer fans in his defense but Nadal was already beating Federer in his prime before Djokovic came along.
Enceladus
Legend
You're wrong, a lot. In the past, were the reigns of two co-kings or monarchs were of a different title. E.g. in ancient Sparta. Or in England in the years 1689-1694, when William III of Orange and Marie II of Stuart ruled together.
The grass has several kings and Djoker is among them.
Fedforever
Hall of Fame
Sampras had retired before the age at which Federer was first beaten by Djoko at Wimbledon.
JaoSousa
Hall of Fame
Sparta had 2 kings
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Honestly, I'd rather he lost to Novak before the CP's like any normal tennis player would.
D
Deleted member 744633
Guest
Yes that is a fact. That's why I added that before Djokovic became a major force, Federer was beaten by Nadal as well. If that was the only loss, we could write that off. However, he was beaten by Nadal on other surfaces as well making it difficult to write that loss off as an anomaly.
Anyways, I don't have a problem with you guys considering Federer the King of grass. For me it's Sampras, that's all.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Losing to Krajicek in straights in the QF is somehow far better than losing to Nadal in the final? Lol nah.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Anybody probably would have lost to Krajicek that day. Probably Federer and Djokovic included. Sampras didn't do much wrong but was just out clutched. He even held serve much easier in that match but Krajicek was too good when it mattered. Krajickek lost one set in that tournament and rolled over Stich and Sampras, both former champions.
ForehandRF
Legend
Add to that the fact that Fed lost 9-7 in the 5th(he never lost in straights anyway since he won Wimby for the first time).
NatF
Bionic Poster
Krajicek was a beast for sure, still massive double standards.
Pete took longer to get going on grass, I don't see Federer losing in straights - or Pete if that's a final. Either way I don't see how that's a better loss than losing in 5 to Nadal...
alexio
G.O.A.T.
Federer is the undisputed KING of Grass and his achievements speak volumes.
- 8 Wimbledon titles - 1st
- 12 Wimbledon finals - 1st
- 19 Grass titles - 1st
- 65-match grass court winning streak - 1st
- 1 Wimbledon title without dropping a set - shared with Borg(1976)
- 5 Consecutive Wimbledon titles - shared with Borg(1976-80)
- 187 grass court match victories - 1st
- 13 consecutive grass court finals reached - 1st
- 36 consecutive sets on grass court won - 1st
- 187 grass court match victories - 1st
Losing in the finals is worse than losing in the early round against low ranked players.
VB logic 101
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
He should've lost to Rosol or Darcis instead.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Not much you can do when an opponent is goating like that. Cash bludgeoned Wilander, Connors and Lendl in his Wimbledon run all in straight sets. It happens. I don't think that's an embarrassing loss really and neither is Federer losing to Nadal.
weakera
Talk Tennis Guru
NatF
Bionic Poster
Didn't say it was embarrassing.
Mike Sams
G.O.A.T.
Funny thing is that Nadal's dream as a kid was to win Wimbledon. Not the French Open. His own words.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Well I should say I don't think it's a bad loss.
Mike Sams
G.O.A.T.
Sampras was undefeated in Wimbledon finals. So Sampras could qualify as the GOAT on grass.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
Rosol, Darcis, Brown, Muller vs Stakhovsky and Fed's 5 years older.Or Stakhovsky lol
Muh king
NatF
Bionic Poster
My point was that saying Fed can't be king on grass because he got knocked out by Nadal is next level ironic when Sampras got knocked down himself in an earlier round and by a worse score. I'm not commenting on anything other than the double standards here.
I think a case can be made for Sampras as the BOAT on grass but the argument I responded to wasn't it...
C
Chadalina
Guest
Sampras missed two easy volleys and dumped his trademark overhead into the net in the final game of their match at wimbledon...
weakera
Talk Tennis Guru
No one claims Nadal is King of Wimbledon. I couldn't say Nadal was king of Roland Garros with a straight face if he lost to Stakhovsky, Berdych, Tsonga up 2-0, Anderson up 2-0, 4 finals losses to his two rivals including in his prime, 40-15, Raomug up 2-1.
Some king
