Who do you consider the greatest mens grass court player of all time. It seems alot in the general Pro Discussion think it is Sampras so I was curious to hear what some in this section felt.
A lot (two words) in the Pro Discussion forum don't know anything about tennis or the game's history and probably think Pete was the best claycourt player as well.
The reality is that while Pete was one of the best Wimbledon players of all time his record at other grass-court events was poor. Played Queens 12 times and only won it twice. Played Halle once and lost second round. THAT isn't the record of the best grasscourt player of all time. Hell, that isn't even the record of the second best.
Add to that, in Davis Cup play, Pete lost to Alex Corretja on GRASS and in the United States. Against Alex Corretja on grass???? THAT isn't the hallmark of the game's greatest grass court player, or the fifth best.
Simple reality is that different grass courts play very differently. As a result, Wimbledon plays differently to Newport which plays differently to Queens which is different to Halle and so on. On the Wimbledon grass, Pete was in his element. At Queens, he wasn't. Exactly the same as Rosewall not being at his absolute best on the grass at Wimbledon but thriving on the Australian and American variety or Hoad doing well in Australia and the UK but hating the rotten bounces and poor quality of the grass in the States.
I'd rate Fred Perry, John Newcombe, Rod Laver and Jack Kramer well ahead of Sampras.
Many also forget that 3 of the 4 grand slams used to be on grass before 1975. Therefore the greats before, and in the early, open era, had more opportunity to play on grass.
Of course this also raises the possibility that Pete would have had even more Slams if the grass tradition continued. Considering he played so few tournaments of the surface, his record was pretty good.
Do you have any video sites for Fred Perry? (I hate to say it, but I've only seen him on that Fred Perry tennis wear commercial.)
Look at votes though compared to the comments, it really is a joke!!!
The Sampras fans just simply cannot argue their case!!!
Laver was the Greatest Mens Grass Court Player Ever, without any doubt at all
well i'm no sampras fan (got nothing against him either) but 7 wimbledon titles makes a pretty good case
I voted for Laver but what surprises me about this poll is after 22 total votes that Roger Federer has not gotten 1 vote. Not that I think he deserves a vote but I would have thought since Federer has won so many Wimbledons that he would gotten at least 1 vote.
I'd rate Fred Perry, John Newcombe, Rod Laver and Jack Kramer well ahead of Sampras.
By the way Fred Perry was also a great table tennis (ping pong) player, think he was world champion at that as well?
Anyway my Grandad played and beat him once when he was playing an international game for Wales against England, he always liked to tell that story
The reality is that while Pete was one of the best Wimbledon players of all time his record at other grass-court events was poor. Played Queens 12 times and only won it twice. Played Halle once and lost second round. THAT isn't the record of the best grasscourt player of all time. Hell, that isn't even the record of the second best.
Add to that, in Davis Cup play, Pete lost to Alex Corretja on GRASS and in the United States. Against Alex Corretja on grass???? THAT isn't the hallmark of the game's greatest grass court player, or the fifth best.
Simple reality is that different grass courts play very differently. As a result, Wimbledon plays differently to Newport which plays differently to Queens which is different to Halle and so on. On the Wimbledon grass, Pete was in his element. At Queens, he wasn't.
I'd have to say Laver, he was just phenominal on grass and if he had been able to as thalivest said he would have won more wimbledons.
On grass the better serve and volleyer tends to win on percentages. Because of his superior speed, I believe Laver would beat Sampras to the net, Sampras would be more confined to the baseline, and thus would tend to lose against Laver.
Laver's game was better than Sampras's in every respect, except the serve.
A lot (two words) in the Pro Discussion forum don't know anything about tennis or the game's history and probably think Pete was the best claycourt player as well.
The reality is that while Pete was one of the best Wimbledon players of all time his record at other grass-court events was poor. Played Queens 12 times and only won it twice. Played Halle once and lost second round. THAT isn't the record of the best grasscourt player of all time. Hell, that isn't even the record of the second best.
Add to that, in Davis Cup play, Pete lost to Alex Corretja on GRASS and in the United States. Against Alex Corretja on grass???? THAT isn't the hallmark of the game's greatest grass court player, or the fifth best.
Simple reality is that different grass courts play very differently. As a result, Wimbledon plays differently to Newport which plays differently to Queens which is different to Halle and so on. On the Wimbledon grass, Pete was in his element. At Queens, he wasn't. Exactly the same as Rosewall not being at his absolute best on the grass at Wimbledon but thriving on the Australian and American variety or Hoad doing well in Australia and the UK but hating the rotten bounces and poor quality of the grass in the States.
I'd rate Fred Perry, John Newcombe, Rod Laver and Jack Kramer well ahead of Sampras.
Look at votes though compared to the comments, it really is a joke!!!
The Sampras fans just simply cannot argue their case!!!
Laver was the Greatest Mens Grass Court Player Ever, without any doubt at all
On grass the better serve and volleyer tends to win on percentages. Because of his superior speed, I believe Laver would beat Sampras to the net, Sampras would be more confined to the baseline, and thus would tend to lose against Laver.
Laver's game was better than Sampras's in every respect, except the serve.
Thanks for asking. I believe that Laver was better at everything, except the serve.
I am saying that Laver's return game was better, his volleying was better, his ground game (forehand and backhand) was better, and he was faster.
Sorry, no knock on Pete. I like his game a lot, particularly his forehand and his under-rated backhand IMO, and his put-away volleys.
All of these elements of Pete's game were "very good." I simply believe that all of the components of Laver's game were not just very good, but among the best of all time. Laver had no weaknesses; IMO he was the most complete player in the history of the game.
In my opinion the only thing Sampras does/did demonstrably better was the serve. (As for greater power for Sampras, well this is time-travel stuff anyway--wood Maxply versus PS 85 is factored, or maybe both with K88, both age 29, so who can say.)
Let's just take a deep breath, and not bite any one's head off, please. (You would think I'd brought up Monica.)This thread is a joke... a complete joke!!!!!!
AHEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm gonna revive this thread after Roger wins Wimbledon 09. I'm the only one who voted for Roger so far, but watch how things change. I stick with my pick.
I'm gonna revive this thread after Roger wins Wimbledon 09. I'm the only one who voted for Roger so far, but watch how things change. I stick with my pick.
No I think Roger has more of a case as being one of the greatest hardcourt players ever especially faster USO type courts as he does a GOAT candidacy on grass.
I agree with you for once.
We agree on something? What the hell.
are you saying Laver had a better return game, better FH? So Laver would have an easier time breaking Pete's serve than Pete breaking Laver's?? No knock on Rod, but Pete had a very good all-court game and his power may be too much for the Rocket. I think they both excelled at the net and not sure Rod was fatser to the net. I give Pete the odd as the better athlete and I know Pete was as fast as a deer. Laver may have had the better "classic" grass-court game, but Pete's serve and return game would probably overtake anything Laver had that was better. I think the return game was key on grass and I just don't see Laver doing much to Pete.
Sampras without a doubt. 7 Wimbeldons in 8 years? Whos come close except Renshaw maybe or I guess Borg? And Fed I suppose but he struggles against a defensive grinder in Nadal on grass.
Laver aint better than Pete on grass. Pete is the greatest player to ever step foot on the lawns of Wimbeldon.. HANDS DOWN. No one compares.
There isnt a player in history who could Pete on grass when he was on his game and at his peak... Except Krajieck in 96 I suppose .
But I think you would be hardpressed to make a convincing case of anyone better than Pete on grass. Hes proved himself IMO as the greatest ever on this surface.
I assume you mean your Grandfather beat him at Table Tennis? Either game, if your Grandfather beat Fred Perry, that's very very impressive. If I beat a player of Perry's level, I would be talking about it all the time. lol.
Incidentally Jimbo333 I've often wished I had a copy of that 1973 Newcombe-Connors U.S. Open match.
I am actually a bigger Mac fan. But I cannot justifiably vote for a guy I never saw play. I guess you must be 60 + years old then, since you seem adament about Laver. I guess you have all of this confidence since you have seen play since the 50's.
I thought you said you were 25? How many times have you seen Laver or Borg play in their primes?
* Even in the direst of circumstances -- being down and out like nobody else almost -- being 0-2 against Edmondson and Connors, a break down in the fifth against a peak Gerulaitis in 77 -- every five-setter -- he was just the very definition of clutch at Wimby. Hit "Clutch" at Wiki and there's only a picture of Ice Borg there.