We'll agree to disagree on this one.
You can't give value above the point value awarded to a player. Murray's Olympic gold adds one 750 level tournament win to his achievements.
Might as well go big and rate it above a slam if you're going to just make up where it falls in importance according to your beliefs.
Watch the actual match. It was high quality; what PETE did that year outside of it is pretty much irrelevant. It was a great match.Hahaha, Fred fans can tell exactly how many matches he lost a year, to whom, the score, the date, the location, the umpire... to prove he was not at his peak/ he had mono/ he had a nail injury during a period.... But Sampras in a titleless year was still kind of something big?
How about "it took Fred 5 sets to beat grandpa Pete in the worst year of Pete's career"?
took 5 sets, grandpa, bad year... they're all Fred fans favourite stuffs, no?
The most important thing here is, nobody says Fred is not great on grass. But he can't be considered better than Pete on fast grass when all the evidence are a Junior title and 1 match in Pete's most terrible year.
You Do think Fred is better than Pete on fast grass?
Hahaha, Fred fans can tell exactly how many matches he lost a year, to whom, the score, the date, the location, the umpire... to prove he was not at his peak/ he had mono/ he had a nail injury during a period.... But Sampras in a titleless year was still kind of something big?
How about "it took Fred 5 sets to beat grandpa Pete in the worst year of Pete's career"?
took 5 sets, grandpa, bad year... they're all Fred fans favourite stuffs, no?
The most important thing here is, nobody says Fred is not great on grass. But he can't be considered better than Pete on fast grass when all the evidence are a Junior title and 1 match in Pete's most terrible year.
You Do think Fred is better than Pete on fast grass?
Watched it, but logic is logic, especially the logic mostly used by Fred fans themselves.
What you say is a kind of interesting. It shows that you didn't watch the match, because Sampras was playing very well. I don't think that he was playing his peak tennis by any means, but a very good level nonetheless.
However, you are not following: win or lose that match Federer played S&V in it and to a great effect, and that was the main contention: that he mastered that style. The fact that he won just helps to bring the point home, which would have been more difficult with the trolls which even now refuse to recognise the facts.
Your way of arguing is extremely volatile: you are trying to move goalposts, create straw men and your work with facts is lousy.
When we started talking you claimed that Federer hasn't won anything big on fast grass, to which I responded with several achievements of his own in such conditions.
You then proceeded to falsify basically every point I made:
To the point about winning the Junior Wimbledon in Singles and Doubles you said that it doesn't count, because it wasn't even Wimbledon, which is patently false. Then you tried to create a straw man by saying that Junior Wimbledon is not as important/difficult to win as the men's tournament, when I never claimed that.
To the point of Federer winning against Sampras, you first claimed that Sampras had a "bad day at the office", and after I made the remark that you didn't watch the match, if you claim such a thing, you shifted your claim to "Sampras had a bad year" (as though a player has to play badly everywhere, if he has a bad year).
To the point of his first Wimbledon win being achieved with significant amount of S&Ving, you try to sweep under the carpet that that style was a significant part of what won him that tournament, even though the grass was already a lot less conductive of using that playing style.
In your efforts to disprove my points you forget to disprove the fact that all of these were achieved while playing S&V to a great effect.
You say that those are not big achievements, but they are as big as they get, considering the place where the career of the player was. I mean, if Federer plays in the Junior ranks, he cannot win more than the Wimbledon for Juniors (both for Singles and Doubles no less), can he?
Beating the King of Wimbledon with his own style that he never had a chance to develop fully and would later abandon for a more adequate to the conditions is as big a testament to his mastery and learning ability as any.
Using a style that was already dying out while winning his first Wimbledon: another big sign of ability in adverse conditions.
The truth is that Federer was extremely promising fast surface player, and the only thing stopping him from developing even earlier was his game that needed time to mature.
I cannot answer definitely the question of whether Sampras or Federer would have been better on fast grass. Sampras was a beast on the serve, and athletically very gifted, but Federer had better return and could match and exceed Samp's efficiency on the serve and definitely had a bigger serve plus FH combo. Federer really spend very little time developing his fast-grass game.
He entered the men's tour in 1999, and by Wimbledon 2002 the fast grass of old was gone.
Can you point at the parts of Samp's game in that match which were very sub-standard?
The point level of a tournament determines its ranking according to others, and you can't do math on ordinal figures (e.g., adding second and third doesn't give you fifth (or first)).
You underestimate Nole's level game on the grass. His service + return combo is among the best in history. Deep strokes, great moving, all these aspects Djoker can do applied to the grass.
Which tells us everything we need to know about your agenda and level of willingness to be honest in your appraisal. Ignorance is bliss I guess. I'll say it again, it was a high quality match and matches outside of this one have no bearing on that fact, however much you'd like to bury your head in the sand and wish it to be true for the sake of disparaging Federer.
1 Masters title is better than any 1 of the 8 500 levels. lol.
Isn't Djokovic basically the main reason there was a "slamidous" Federer in the first place...
Going to Wimbledon straight after a Roland Garros disappointment with no grass match practice is a risky move itself. Having the eye for Novak's "angles" , you should also see the obvious.
Isn't Djokovic basically the main reason there was a "slamidous" Federer in the first place...
The other matches don't matter. This particular match was a good match. But of course, because there's more subjectivity involved in such a qualitative analysis, suddenly you'll argue the fact that it isn't true as an infalsifiable position because either you are lacklustre in your ability to appraise the quality of a match or a dishonest coward who needs to bash Fed at any cost. While it is possible that you honestly came to this conclusion when watching the match, it's obvious you did not by your deflection to irrelevance. Don't worry, there are plenty of other matches Fed has played which were low quality to choose from.
These times are not that long ago! His most dominant Wimbledon ever was in 2017 when he won the title without losing a set. You are right though that he has his off-days now becoming older, but in 2018 it was just one bad match against Anderson (or better said it was only an unexplainable second half of that match).
