4-3 says other wise.
This is the nightmare Djokovic must have wanted to avoid. I.e Medvedev on a 20 match unbeaten run with two straight set demolitions over top 10 players.
Imagine say Nadal at the FO v Thiem who had in his past two rounds say hammered Tsitsipas and Rublev. Everyone would be saying Thiem to inflict first final defeat on the Great Nadal.
Djokovic has lost 3 of his last 4 matches to Medvedev. Medvedev will want to put right USO 2019. He also played a better Djokovic in 2019 in Australia.
It is hard to see anything other than a Medvedev win.
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.
Please consider adding 'as far as I am concerned' to your post.
You are making it sound like a universally accepted fact that 7-0 is more prestigious than 8-3
Making 11 finals is better than making 7 finals for anyone with common sense , as far as I am concerned.
As regards the original topic, AO is same as Wimbledon today and 9 AO is better than 7 Wimb. May be when the count is same, we can say the preference is to have more Wimbledons.
7 in 8. Against all but one Hall of Fame player (Pioline). Although Fed's line between 2003-2012 was very comparable.
In that case, Sampras lost to the guy who lost in three finals. Sampras was only 29 years then. If Sampras was so much better than Federer, why did he not win more than 7 finals?
The only thing that actually makes sense is to say that Sampras was better in his first seven finals than Federer since 7-0 > 6-1. At the end of the day, 8>7.
Spare the pathetic excuse about nutrition. In the 1900-1920 (before steroids were synthesised in labs) there were male and female bodybuilders who had impressive physiques. If those guys were good enough to do that with the nutrional knowledge of more than 100 years ago, Sampras has no excuses whatsoever. Not to say that building mass is the only physical trait a tennis player is looking for, cardio matters as well.
It's just that some idiots think that our nutrition knowledge has exploded since 2010 lol. Not the case at all. We're still in the dark for lots of things, one of them being nutrition.
Someone should actually make a thread on nutrition and examine what benefits 2000s players (which Federer belongs to) had relative to 1990s players. What 100% factual benefits (with no uncertainty around it) did those players have. Not much.
Sampras wasn't adviced to eat hamburgers from the McDonald's lol.
(13 >) 9 > 7
Please consider adding 'as far as I am concerned' to your post.
You are making it sound like a universally accepted fact that 7-0 is more prestigious than 8-3
Making 11 finals is better than making 7 finals for anyone with common sense , as far as I am concerned.
As regards the original topic, AO is same as Wimbledon today and 9 AO is better than 7 Wimb. May be when the count is same, we can say the preference is to have more Wimbledons.
Even if it is 7 out of 7 it does not matter. Just extrapolate if the 2002 Sampras kept showing up at Wimb for the next 5 years.
Machan ... what a post, what a wonderful post!
1. Why did Sampras not try and win more than 7? For the same reason my neighbor retired at 62 but my colleague Mike continues to work at 65. Different strokes for different folks. Sampras was content and he called it a day. Remember, he very much still had it in him to win and went out at the absolute top with a US Open final victory. The point that I'm emphasizing is not the number of titles but the fact that there was nobody in the competition that could dominate him on grass unlike Federer who has been dominated by his chief rival.
2. Nutrition .. agreed but when did I ever claim Sampras suffered from a lack of it or that Federer benefitted from it? If you can point me to one single post where I've written so, I will wear a Federer is GOAT t-shirt and walk every street in my neighborhood! Not only that, I'll post pictures of it here
3. 8 > 7 ... agreed. Nowhere have I denied that one either. All I'm saying is if you look behind the numbers, Sampras > Federer (at Wimbledon, that is)
It's different when you have severe changes such as poly, surface and racquet size prevalences.
I'm sure if those issues weren't at hand Sampras would have played beyond 2002.
I believe it is special, but in a sense "1st among equals". It is most prestigious, but it's own goat-race value is exactly the same as other 3.Agreed but some people have claimed Wimbledon is more prestigious than others so I decided to create this thread. Note though that I personally don't think Wimbledon is anything special. All slams are created equal
Make a general poll for a random tournament for any sports without identifying player names. What would the generic public choose ? A player who makes 11 finals and wins 8 times or a player who makes it to finals only 7 times ?
Sometimes we let the names prejudice our opinion.
I am a Sampras fan as well but Federer has eclipsed Sampras long time back.
Sampras was phenomenal but he does not have the longevity and the results Federer has had.
Make a general poll for a random tournament for any sports without identifying player names. What would the generic public choose ? A player who makes 11 finals and wins 8 times or a player who makes it to finals only 7 times ?
Sometimes we let the names prejudice our opinion.
I am a Sampras fan as well but Federer has eclipsed Sampras long time back.
Sampras was phenomenal but he does not have the longevity and the results Federer has had.
I believe it is special, but in a sense "1st among equals". It is most prestigious, but it's own goat-race value is exactly the same as other 3.
Okay but how about Sampras being pushed to 5 sets only once in his 7 clean finals? While the other guy won 2 five setters and lost 3 others. How about three straight set victories compared to two despite an additional title? It's not like comparing Montana to Brady, it's like comparing Michael Jordan to LeBron James.
You won't believe me, but I was considering doing another thread about who was greater of the two. Every time Novak Djokovic gets within 2 slams of Nadal, I consider the topic.
I think you are absolutely right and for Djok NOT to be roughly equal to Pete's perfect 7 he should win another 11 AOs in the process to better it. At least!Wimbledon 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.
Okay but how about Sampras being pushed to 5 sets only once in his 7 clean finals? While the other guy won 2 five setters and lost 3 others. How about three straight set victories compared to two despite an additional title? It's not like comparing Montana to Brady, it's like comparing Michael Jordan to LeBron James.
13 RG = 7.65784 Wims = 8.37843 USOs9 AOs is not even equivalent to 4.5 Wimbledon titles...
Federer and Del Potro are waiting for Nadal and Djokovic to retire to reappear in the tour.Federer being dropped to third on the slam domination list has clearly rattled people.
Indeed, Borg is unique in tennis history. While perhaps not the GOAT, there is no one with his unique ability to dominate the diametrically different natural surfaces, in a day and age when they played so differently and his natural style was unsuited to grass.6 Roland Garros Titles is more impressive than anything else when comparing single Major Tournaments. Red Clay is the ultimate test of Tennis because it challenges so many of the player's skills encompassing athleticism, endurance, stroke technique, footwork, point planning, shot decision making and mental prowess.
Interesting to note that both Sampras and Federer were not able to master Roland Garros for different reasons.
Also interesting to note that Borg was able to master both of those surfaces at a time when Grass played much faster and there were Grass court and Clay court specialist who often did not play or perfrom well on their non preferred surface.
Jesus, you probably think Joe Montana is better than Brady too. Federer was 33 when he started losing to Djokovic at Wimbledon.Superb question Gabe! The answer is yes, I would have thought better of Federer because then he would not have lost those three finals to Djokovic so there would have been no way for me to know that Djokovic is a better player than Federer on grass. In the absence of such data, I would have had to rely on the number of Wimbledon titles won by each player and by virtue of Federer winning more titles, I would have concluded he was the better player.
But now I'm in a dilemma because if I say Federer is the greater grass player, my neighbor who I discuss tennis with a lot says "so he's the greatest of all time but can't beat another from his own generation" and laughs at me.
Machan ... what a post, what a wonderful post!
1. Why did Sampras not try and win more than 7? For the same reason my neighbor retired at 62 but my colleague Mike continues to work at 65. Different strokes for different folks. Sampras was content and he called it a day. Remember, he very much still had it in him to win and went out at the absolute top with a US Open final victory. The point that I'm emphasizing is not the number of titles but the fact that there was nobody in the competition that could dominate him on grass unlike Federer who has been dominated by his chief rival.
2. Nutrition .. agreed but when did I ever claim Sampras suffered from a lack of it or that Federer benefitted from it? If you can point me to one single post where I've written so, I will wear a Federer is GOAT t-shirt and walk every street in my neighborhood! Not only that, I'll post pictures of it here
3. 8 > 7 ... agreed. Nowhere have I denied that one either. All I'm saying is if you look behind the numbers, Sampras > Federer (at Wimbledon, that is)
This hypothetical stuff is odd. For Djokovic every year is he will do this wont do that and every year bar 2011 and 2015 he falls short of these projected goals.
He is too far behind Nadal and Federer. The assumption that the Next Gen are just walkovers is so misguided. After the next FO Nadal probably has a 3 slam lead. Im not saying he will but he is as much a lock at RG as any sportsperson is at any event. There is no way Djokovic pulls back a 3 Major gap.
Djokovic messed up last year.
Please consider adding 'as far as I am concerned' to your post.
You are making it sound like a universally accepted fact that 7-0 is more prestigious than8-38-4
Making1112 finals is better than making 7 finals for anyone with common sense , as far as I am concerned.
As regards the original topic, AO is same as Wimbledon today and 9 AO is better than 7 Wimb. May be when the count is same, we can say the preference is to have more Wimbledons.
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.
It's different when you have severe changes such as poly, surface and racquet size prevalences.
I'm sure if those issues weren't at hand Sampras would have played beyond 2002.
Joe Montana is better than Brady too.
If we're nitpicking and evaluating Fed's entire career on grass by his losses in his 30s
Close, but 9 is better than 7. I would be happy with 1-0- LOL!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?
True, Wimbledon has had a more glorified past but since the mid eighties, the AO has had the same top competition as Wimby, FO and USO, therefore, the slams should have equal weight accomplishment wise.You people do have issues with the facts.
FACT: nobody dreams of winning the AO. FACT: Plenty of players grew up dreaming of winning Wimbledon
Win Wimbledon once and you're a legend for life, just look at Goran. Is Thomas Johansson a legend? I. Don't. Think. So.
True, Wimbledon has had a more glorified past but since the mid eighties, the AO has had the same top competition as Wimby, FO and USO, therefore, the slams should have equal weight accomplishment wise.
For a guy who’s claimed he’s never been wrong, you are wrong an awful lot.Nadal is better at USO. Won it more recently than Djokovic. Nadal is a lock at FO. Djokovic just too far behind. He needs to get to 20 this year realistically. Not happening. He only has one 3 slam season. 2011.
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.
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?
For a guy who’s claimed he’s never been wrong, you are wrong an awful lot.
Like it or not 13 RG=13 slams. 9 AO=9 slams, 8 Wimbledon= 8 slams. 5 USO=5 slams.L
13 RG = 7.65784 Wims = 8.37843 USOs
Since about 1985 or so.You mean since 2008?
I know that already. My style of writing in GPPD tends to be sarcastic defensive, passive aggressive, or something in between.Like it or not 13 RG=13 slams. 9 AO=9 slams, 8 Wimbledon= 8 slams. 5 USO=5 slams.
When did Djokovic have another 3 slam season bud? Please correct me if i am wrong but not in his 30s?For a guy who’s claimed he’s never been wrong, you are wrong an awful lot.