D
Deleted member 744633
Guest
Which is more impressive? 7-0 in finals at Wimbledon by Pete Sampras, the greatest grass court player that ever lived or 9-0 in AO finals by Djokovic, the hardcourt GOAT?
lleyton will approveI always thought 9>7.
I'm afraid 9>7 my friendWhich is more impressive? 7-0 in finals at Wimbledon by Pete Sampras, the greatest grass court player that ever lived or 9-0 in AO finals by Djokovic, the hardcourt GOAT?
I'm afraid 9>7 my friend
Both are equally impressive imo. Pete’s time was different, no modern nutrition/medicine/physios to extend careers. Both guys invincible at their pet slam along with Nadal at RG.
yes I agree that from a numbers perspective 9 is greater than 7 but numbers don't always tell the story. for example Federer has 8 Wimbledon titles which is one more than Sampras’ 7 yet Sampras is the greater Wimbledon champion because Federer lost three finals all to the same player and someone who loses so many times to the same player of his own generation cannot be considered the greatest at that tournament.
This is fair. I can say they're equal and Nadal's is top of course.Both are equally impressive imo. Pete’s time was different, no modern nutrition/medicine/physios to extend careers. Both guys invincible at their pet slam along with Nadal at RG.
Which is more impressive? 7-0 in finals at Wimbledon by Pete Sampras, the greatest grass court player that ever lived or 9-0 in AO finals by Djokovic, the hardcourt GOAT?
Pete. Not close. Nobody grows up dreaming of winning the AO
Sampras fans always make the best jokes.
Pete. Not close. Nobody grows up dreaming of winning the AO
Lol, Pete was the dominator, not the dominated. The record stands at 0-3 (1-3 if we generously include Fed's semifinal win against an off-Nole)Sampras fans always make the best jokes.
There is no way you can convince him.Sampras fans always make the best jokes.
would you think better of Federer if he had simply failed to reach the finals those times he lost to Novak?yes I agree that from a numbers perspective 9 is greater than 7 but numbers don't always tell the story. for example Federer has 8 Wimbledon titles which is one more than Sampras’ 7 yet Sampras is the greater Wimbledon champion because Federer lost three finals all to the same player and someone who loses so many times to the same player of his own generation cannot be considered the greatest at that tournament.
How can Fed touch Pete's career when he's not even the best of his own generation?
How is that better than winning 7 titles in 8 years as opposed to 7 in 10 and 8 in 15? Feels like Fedfan logic.There is no way you can convince him.
Federer is greater, more consistent and has the longevity whereas Pete was more dominant in finals.Fed's most dominant stretch was better than Pete's though, 5 titles in a row and 7 finals in a row.
Such salty tearsPete. Not close. Nobody grows up dreaming of winning the AO
Wimbledon v AO. Lmao.Which is more impressive? 7-0 in finals at Wimbledon by Pete Sampras, the greatest grass court player that ever lived or 9-0 in AO finals by Djokovic, the hardcourt GOAT?
To be fair the salt seems to be Djokovic fans. 20-18 really seems to be an issue. Instead of celebrating 9 AOs his fans have been going on about Baghdatis and USO 2017.Such salty tears
This. 2-2 if Fed takes 2019 and I take my hat off for him winning an epic, defeating main rivals b2b at 38. wasn’t clutch enough. You just know Pete would smash down an ace on MPs... four 1st serves until one catches the line.Lol, Pete was the dominator, not the dominated. The record stands at 0-3 (1-3 if we generously include Fed's semifinal win against an off-Nole)
The actual number of titles is what counts more.Pete was more dominant once he reached the latter stages of the tournament, I'll give him that.How is that better than winning 7 titles in 8 years as opposed to 7 in 10 and 8 in 15? Feels like Fedfan logic.
More people remember it for sure. He played Rafter. I only remember yesterday and AO 2012 finals off hand.So one is the most prestigious Slam and the other is the least prestigious Slam.
Hmm. I think that Ivanisevic's 1 title at Wimbledon is greater than Djokovic's 9 titles at the AO.
How can Fed touch Pete's career when he's not even the best of his own generation?
To be fair the salt seems to be Djokovic fans. 20-18 really seems to be an issue. Instead of celebrating 9 AOs his fans have been going on about Baghdatis and USO 2017.
FO 2020 is the killer blow no?
That's reasonable, but you said Fed's most dominant streak was better than Pete's which is false imo, especially if we apply your logic that titles trump. 7 titles in 8 years trumps 5 titles in 5 years or 7 finals in 7 yearsThe actual number of titles is what counts more.Pete was more dominant once he reached the latter stages of the tournament, I'll give him that.
Lol, Pete was the dominator, not the dominated. The record stands at 0-3 (1-3 if we generously include Fed's semifinal win against an off-Nole)
would you think better of Federer if he had simply failed to reach the finals those times he lost to Novak?
Hmm. Novak is ahead of Fed and one behind Nadal when comparing slams at the same age. He’s the number 1 player and favorite in 3 of the 4 slams. He’s just destroyed the HC rising star in straight sets and won 6 of the last 10 slams (you have to go back to peak Fed in 2005/7 for a better result). He will probably play for several more years and even once he is no longer the favorite he will remain a contender. I think he’s doing fine.To be fair the salt seems to be Djokovic fans. 20-18 really seems to be an issue. Instead of celebrating 9 AOs his fans have been going on about Baghdatis and USO 2017.
FO 2020 is the killer blow no?
Wimbledon v AO. Lmao.
Such salty tears
Trying to forget 2017?More people remember it for sure. He played Rafter. I only remember yesterday and AO 2012 finals off hand.
okay, then djo 18 also roughly equal to fed 20, plus the higher number the slimmer the significance of a gap, plus stolen possibility at uso, plus another stolen possibility coz of canceled wimby, plus way earlier slam number 18 was won (between two), have a nice nightWimbledon remains the pinnacle of the sport, no matter what others might state.
PETE's perfect 7 are therefore roughly equal to Djoker's 9 at the AO.