GOAT by surface

money_ball

money_ball

Rookie
Who are your GOAT's by surface?

Here are mine, largely based upon stats:

Clay
-----
GOAT: Nadal
- 6 RG's, 32 clay titles, 92.7 win % on clay

Runner-up: Borg
- 6 RG's, 30 clay titles, 86.3 win % on clay

Honorable mention #1: Lendl
- 3 RG's, 28 clay titles, 81.4 win % on clay

Honorable mention #2: Vilas
- 1 RG, 45 clay titles, 79.6 win % on clay

Grass
-------
GOAT: Sampras
- 7 Wimbledons, 10 grass titles, 83.5 win % on grass

Runner-up #1: Federer
- 6 Wimbledons, 11 grass titles, 87.2 win % on grass

Runner-up #2: Borg
- 5 Wimbledons, 6 grass titles, 84.7 win % on grass

Hardcourt
-----------
GOAT: Federer
- 5 US Opens, 4 Aussies, 45 hardcourt titles, 82.4 win % on hardcourts

Runner-up #1: Connors
- 5 US Opens, 1 Aussie, 44 titles, 82.5 win % on hardcourts

Runner-up #2: Agassi
- 2 US Opens, 4 Aussies, 45 hardcourt titles, 79.0 win % on hardcourts

Carpet (obsolete surface)
-----------------------------
GOAT: McEnroe
- 42 titles, 84.4 win % on carpet

Runner-up #1: Connors
- 39 titles, 81.9% win % on carpet

Runner-up #2: Lendl
- 32 titles, 82.7 win % on carpet

I don't have a single overall GOAT, but these are my candidates in alphabetical order:

Bjorn Borg
Roger Federer
Pancho Gonzalez
Rod Laver
Rafael Nadal
Pete Sampras
 
This is a very good post with a huge caveat: It should be MAOAT (Most Accomplished Of All Time.) The concept of GOAT is nonsensical.

I would probably put Federer ahead of Sampras on grass as well.

Look at Nadal's numbers. Holy cr@p. :)

Looking at accomplishments though, it's a very good post, thank you. Love your mention of Pancho Gonzalez also.
 
Goat on Wood, an anachronistic surface also, maybe Gonzalez or Laver. Best match goat on (cow) sh... Probably a match won by Mal Anderson of Australia in a Davis Cup vs Vijai Amritay of India around 1975.
 
Forehand Avenger said:
This is a very good post with a huge caveat: It should be MAOAT (Most Accomplished Of All Time.) The concept of GOAT is nonsensical.

I would probably put Federer ahead of Sampras on grass as well.

Look at Nadal's numbers. Holy cr@p. :)

Looking at accomplishments though, it's a very good post, thank you. Love your mention of Pancho Gonzalez also.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right about the MAOAT. Unfortunately "GOAT" sounds "catchier".

With regards to overall GOAT's, I have to add honorable mentions to:

- Jimmy Connors (put on a massive beat-down on his opponents in 1974, and should have won the Calendar Slam if he weren't banned because he played WTT).

- John McEnroe (put on a MASSIVE beat-down on his opponents in 1984, but choked away the RG final to Lendl while up 2 sets to love and up a break; I think he still has the best single season win % record).

- Novak Djokovic (put on an exceptionally MASSIVE beat-down on his opponents this year).
 
money_ball said:
Who are your GOAT's by surface?

Here are mine, largely based upon stats:

Clay
-----
GOAT: Nadal
- 6 RG's, 32 clay titles, 92.7 win % on clay

Runner-up: Borg
- 6 RG's, 30 clay titles, 86.3 win % on clay

Honorable mention #1: Lendl
- 3 RG's, 28 clay titles, 81.4 win % on clay

Honorable mention #2: Vilas
- 1 RG, 45 clay titles, 79.6 win % on clay

Grass
-------
GOAT: Sampras
- 7 Wimbledons, 10 grass titles, 83.5 win % on grass

Runner-up #1: Federer
- 6 Wimbledons, 11 grass titles, 87.2 win % on grass

Runner-up #2: Borg
- 5 Wimbledons, 6 grass titles, 84.7 win % on grass

Hardcourt
-----------
GOAT: Federer
- 5 US Opens, 4 Aussies, 45 hardcourt titles, 82.4 win % on hardcourts

Runner-up #1: Connors
- 5 US Opens, 1 Aussie, 44 titles, 82.5 win % on hardcourts

Runner-up #2: Agassi
- 2 US Opens, 4 Aussies, 45 hardcourt titles, 79.0 win % on hardcourts

Carpet (obsolete surface)
-----------------------------
GOAT: McEnroe
- 42 titles, 84.4 win % on carpet

Runner-up #1: Connors
- 39 titles, 81.9% win % on carpet

Runner-up #2: Lendl
- 32 titles, 82.7 win % on carpet

I don't have a single overall GOAT, but these are my candidates in alphabetical order:

Bjorn Borg
Roger Federer
Pancho Gonzalez
Rod Laver
Rafael Nadal
Pete Sampras
Click to expand...

are you basing sampras being goat on grass because he has one more wimbledon title than fed?
 
gamesetmats said:
Grass: Laver?
Click to expand...

Man did I overlooked that! As Laver is like Beethoven: a master of two eras.

I don't have all the stats on Laver, but he would have to be grass GOAT since in his day, 3 out of the 4 Grand Slams were on grass, and he has 9 total Grand Slam titles on grass:

- 4 Wimbledons
- 3 Aussies
- 2 US Opens

He also won an additional 2 Grand Slam titles on clay (Roland Garros).

Like Pancho Gonzalez, he definitely would have won a lot more Grand Slams if he didn't go pro.

1950's GOAT: Pancho Gonzalez

1960's GOAT: Rod Laver

1970's GOAT: Bjorn Borg (runner-up: Jimmy Connors)

1980's GOAT: Most competitive decade in my book. Difficult to choose among Lendl, McEnroe, Wilander, Edberg, and Becker, as all these guys won multiple slams on multiple surfaces.

1990's GOAT: Sampras (runner-up: Agassi)

2000's GOAT: Federer (runner-up: Nadal)

2010's GOAT: Djokovic?
 
IMO you can't really call someone the GOAT until they retire, because they can still get more.

Clay: Nadal
Hard: Federer
Grass: Sampras
 
This is actually a pretty damn good GOAT/MAOAT discussion. Good catch on Laver. I wonder how different Sampras' slam total would have looked if three of the four slams were still grass? But now we're into hypotheticals.

Good stats; agree with all. But we can battle over grass GOAT all day - especially if the change of the court speed is brought into the discussion.
 
Clay: Nadal
Runner Up: Borg
Groomsmen: Rosewall, Kuerten

Hard: Sampras
Runner Up: Federer
Groomsmen: Agassi, Djokovic

Grass: Laver
Runner Up: Sampras
Groomsmen: Borg, Becker

Carpet/Indoors: Sampras
Runner Up: Becker
Groosmen: Lendl, McEnroe
 
Just to mention some overlooked names that weren't mentioned much
Grass
Laver
Gonzelez
Rosewall
Tilden
McEnroe
Kramer
Clay
Rosewall
Laver
Tilden
Cochet
Kuerten
Lendl
Wilander
Indoor
Laver
Tilden
Vines
Gonzalez
Kramer
Rosewall
McEnroe
Lendl
Connors
Hard
Laver
Rosewall
Tilden
Gonzalez
Kramer
Connors
McEnroe
Lendl

There are reasons to argue any of these players to be the top on these surfaces. I didn't want to mention some that have been mentioned already like Borg and Nadal.
 
Last edited:
LOL at ****s thinking Federer is better than Sampras on grass. Absolutely delusional. Sampras won 1 more Wimbledon and was more dominant by far overall on grass, while facing a much tougher grass court field and actually playing on real grass. Sampras had a much better 1st serve, 2nd serve, forehand volley, backhand, volley, overhead, was just as good at first strike tennis from the baseline (not as good at rallying but that isnt important on grass, atleast not when men play it properly unlike todays players), and was overall just as athletic or more. Federer only returns slightly better, that would be his only edge on grass.

Their lame argument is already predictable though. Federer barely won one match over 30 year old Sampras at Wimbledon when both were far out of their primes. Yawn....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I want to point out that of the 5 US Opens that Jimmy Connors won, 2 of them were not on HardCourt. 1 was on Grass, and 1 was on Clay. 3 of them were HardCourt.
he's a legend.
 
As for Bjorn Borg, in terms of surface versatility, see his results:

grass courts - 41 matches won in a row at W, 5 straight titles.

clay - 6 FO titles.

indoors - 23 indoor titles, with the majority on indoor carpet, 2 Masters Cup YEC titles, a couple of indoor hard titles.

hard courts - 3 US Open finals.
 
NadalAgassi said:
Clay: Nadal
Runner Up: Borg
Groomsmen: Rosewall, Kuerten

Hard: Sampras
Runner Up: Federer
Groomsmen: Agassi, Djokovic

Grass: Laver
Runner Up: Sampras
Groomsmen: Borg, Becker

Carpet/Indoors: Sampras
Runner Up: Becker
Groosmen: Lendl, McEnroe
Click to expand...
You missed to put Sampras as Clay runnerup or something, to make it completely absurd
 
_maxi said:
You missed to put Sampras as Clay runnerup or something, to make it completely absurd
Click to expand...

Oh sorry to see you forgot to submit yours so perhaps I should do it for you as it would be quite predictable anyway:

Grass: Nalbandian
Runner up: Del Potro

Clay: Vilas
Runner Up: Gaudio

Hard Courts: Del Potro
Runner Up: Nalbandian

Indoors: Nalbandian
Runner Up: Del Potro
 
NadalAgassi said:
LOL at ****s thinking Federer is better than Sampras on grass. Absolutely delusional. Sampras won 1 more Wimbledon and was more dominant by far overall on grass, while facing a much tougher grass court field and actually playing on real grass. Sampras had a much better 1st serve, 2nd serve, forehand volley, backhand, volley, overhead, was just as good at first strike tennis from the baseline (not as good at rallying but that isnt important on grass, atleast not when men play it properly unlike todays players), and was overall just as athletic or more. Federer only returns slightly better, that would be his only edge on grass.

Their lame argument is already predictable though. Federer barely won one match over 30 year old Sampras at Wimbledon when both were far out of their primes. Yawn....
Click to expand...

B/c of your short term memory, you forgot Fed holds the record for most consecutive win on grass. He also joined Borg for winning 5 straight Wimbledon. Not to mention Fed is still active.

And Fed beat Sampras in 2001 deserved all the credits. He was only 19 facing a 4 time defending champions. Fed snapped his winning streak is equivalent to a young Sampras snapped Lendl's 8 straight USO finals.
 
borg number one said:
As for Bjorn Borg, in terms of surface versatility, see his results:

grass courts - 41 matches won in a row at W, 5 straight titles.

clay - 6 FO titles.

indoors - 23 indoor titles, with the majority on indoor carpet, 2 Masters Cup YEC titles, a couple of indoor hard titles.

hard courts - 3 US Open finals.
Click to expand...

Besides three US Open finals Borg won a lot of hard court tournaments including the 1979 Canadian Open without the loss of a set if memory serves. He defeated McEnroe easily in the final.
 
There is just one GOAT currently.

Roger M Federer

Yes.. i know all about Rafa and his clay prowess. Rafa might have had unparalleled results on clay but he is a great tennis player on all surfaces (career slam ? anyone)

There can only be one GOAT.....(in my book ofcourse)
 
NadalAgassi said:
Oh sorry to see you forgot to submit yours so perhaps I should do it for you as it would be quite predictable anyway:

Grass: Nalbandian
Runner up: Del Potro

Clay: Vilas
Runner Up: Gaudio

Hard Courts: Del Potro
Runner Up: Nalbandian

Indoors: Nalbandian
Runner Up: Del Potro
Click to expand...
I wont submit mines, I kind of agree with the OP
 
Tennis_Monk said:
There is just one GOAT currently.

Roger M Federer

Yes.. i know all about Rafa and his clay prowess. Rafa might have had unparalleled results on clay but he is a great tennis player on all surfaces (career slam ? anyone)

There can only be one GOAT.....(in my book ofcourse)
Click to expand...

Isn't Rafa a great player on all surfaces too? :-?
 
NadalAgassi said:
Clay: Nadal
Runner Up: Borg
Groomsmen: Rosewall, Kuerten

Hard: Sampras
Runner Up: Federer
Groomsmen: Agassi, Djokovic

Grass: Laver
Runner Up: Sampras
Groomsmen: Borg, Becker

Carpet/Indoors: Sampras
Runner Up: Becker
Groosmen: Lendl, McEnroe
Click to expand...

That's going to be a tough case to make...
 
Clay: Borg
Runner Up: Rosewall
Groomsmen: Nadal

Hard: Federer
Runner Up: Agassi
Groomsmen: Sampras

Grass: Federer
Runner Up: Sampras,Borg
Groomsmen: Laver, Becker

Carpet/Indoors: Becker
Runner Up: :Lendl
Groosmen: McEnroe,Edberg, Nalbandian
__________________
 
My thoughts

Here is mine. Open era only. Had radically different ideas about Connors on hard and Lendl on carpet


Clay
-----
GOAT: Nadal
- 6 RG's, 32 clay titles, 92.7 win % on clay

Runner-up: Borg
- 6 RG's, 30 clay titles, 86.3 win % on clay

Honorable mention #1: Lendl
- 3 RG's, 28 clay titles, 81.4 win % on clay

Honorable mention #2: Vilas
- 1 RG+ 1 US open on clay , 45 clay titles, 79.6 win % on clay

Grass
-------
GOAT: Sampras
- 7 Wimbledons, 10 grass titles, 83.5 win % on grass

Runner-up #1: Federer
- 6 Wimbledons, 11 grass titles, 87.2 win % on grass

Runner-up #2: Borg
- 5 Wimbledons, 6 grass titles, 84.7 win % on grass

Hardcourt
-----------
GOAT: Federer
- 5 US Opens, 4 Aussies, 45 hardcourt titles, 82.4 win % on hardcourts

Sampras runner up
- 5 us opens, 2 Australian opens

Runner-up #2 Lendl 8 us open finals (winning 3), 3 Australian open finals on Hard court winning 2

Runner-up #3: Agassi
- 2 US Opens, 4 Aussies, 45 hardcourt titles, 79.0 win % on hardcourts

Runner-up #4: Connors
- 3 US Opens on hard court, no Australian titles on hard court 44 titles, 82.5 win % on hardcourts



Carpet (obsolete surface)
-----------------------------
1st equal : McEnroe & Lendl (Lendl got to 9 straight masters cup final championship matches in a row)

3rd Becker [/QUOTE]
 
piece said:
That's going to be a tough case to make...
Click to expand...

Sampras is superior to Federer at the U.S Open. Both have 5 titles but Sampras has more finals. Federer has more dominance for a period, but Sampras has far more longevity, winning titles there over a 12 year period.

Federer is superior at the Australian. Then again Sampras lost 2 finals to Aussie Open GOAT Agassi. Federer played an exhaused Safin (4 or 5 five setters in a row to reach the final), Baghdatis, Gonzalez, and slam final chump Murray in his 4 Aussie finals.

Both at their best on hard courts I think Sampras would win except on rebound ace possibly.

I would love to see anyone even try and make any case for Federer being superior to Sampras on grass (ROTFL at just the thought of that). I doubt anyone will go beyond the pathetic Federer beat a 30 year old Sampras at Wimbledon once argument. Yet Federer losing 70% of the matches he ever played against Nadal means nothing.
 
borg number one said:
As for Bjorn Borg, in terms of surface versatility, see his results:

grass courts - 41 matches won in a row at W, 5 straight titles.

clay - 6 FO titles.

indoors - 23 indoor titles, with the majority on indoor carpet, 2 Masters Cup YEC titles, a couple of indoor hard titles.

hard courts - 3 US Open finals.
Click to expand...
If Borg hadn't retired so early I have the feeling (as much as I hate the term) that the
GOAT discussion would be moot.
 
NadalAgassi said:
Federer has more dominance for a period, but Sampras has far more longevity, winning titles there over a 12 year period.
Click to expand...
That's flawed reasoning typical of people who wallow in statistics, but have no means to interpret them. Sampras longevity is padded by the fact that he won his first Slam title and then went of the boil for a couple of years, and similarly was off the boil before winning his last title. Sampras and Federer have similar longevity. Any difference there may be between the two is compensated by the fact that Sampras was, for the most part, irrelevant at the FO while Federer was much more well-rounded, having reached 5 FO finals, 4 of them consecutively.

I would love to see anyone even try and make any case for Federer being superior to Sampras on grass (ROTFL at just the thought of that).
Click to expand...
We'll just go look at one of your past 20 identities, and some of those may have made a case for Federer. Then we can both ROFL at the thought.
 
Last edited:
NadalAgassi said:
Sampras is superior to Federer at the U.S Open. Both have 5 titles but Sampras has more finals. Federer has more dominance for a period, but Sampras has far more longevity, winning titles there over a 12 year period.

Federer is superior at the Australian. Then again Sampras lost 2 finals to Aussie Open GOAT Agassi. Federer played an exhaused Safin (4 or 5 five setters in a row to reach the final), Baghdatis, Gonzalez, and slam final chump Murray in his 4 Aussie finals.

Both at their best on hard courts I think Sampras would win except on rebound ace possibly.
Click to expand...

Sampras was beaten by a YOUNG Safin, Hewitt and Roddick on hc. He lost straight set to Hewitt and Safin at the USO despite having a home court advantage. When these 3 players reached their prime, they have no answer for Federer on hc. With exception to Safin in 2005 AO which Federer blew a match point.

Sampras could never beat Agassi at the AO. During his prime, he was 0-2 against Agassi. However, Agassi played Federer and after losing to Fed 8 straight times. He then said "He's[Fed] the best I've ever played against".

Agassi disagree with you. :oops:
Your biased opinion has no weight !
 
NadalAgassi said:
Sampras is superior to Federer at the U.S Open. Both have 5 titles but Sampras has more finals. Federer has more dominance for a period, but Sampras has far more longevity, winning titles there over a 12 year period.

Federer is superior at the Australian. Then again Sampras lost 2 finals to Aussie Open GOAT Agassi. Federer played an exhaused Safin (4 or 5 five setters in a row to reach the final), Baghdatis, Gonzalez, and slam final chump Murray in his 4 Aussie finals.

Both at their best on hard courts I think Sampras would win except on rebound ace possibly.

I would love to see anyone even try and make any case for Federer being superior to Sampras on grass (ROTFL at just the thought of that). I doubt anyone will go beyond the pathetic Federer beat a 30 year old Sampras at Wimbledon once argument. Yet Federer losing 70% of the matches he ever played against Nadal means nothing.
Click to expand...

Isn't Fed 30 right now? Did we see him getting beaten by a 18 year old player at wimby this year? Didn't think so ;)
 
AM95 said:
i feel like nadal is better than borg, despite not tying borgs record for consecutive FO's.
Click to expand...

It's a close call, but Borg won on clay when there was a huge difference in surface properties compared to today. It was probably much harder in those days and he would probably win the majority from Nadal today. So in my book, Borg > Nadal. Plus Borg did everything at a younger age which I am sure as you are aware, the *********s are so obsessed about.
 
Cup8489 said:
Right. The berd is a mug who didn't break into top ten last year.



Oh wait...
Click to expand...


I mean, Berdman kind of his a chump at the end of the day. He has game but he is just one of those talented threats for an upset but just aren't really contenders at all. Losing to Federer is hindsight isn't very humiliating, he has proved to be a great, Berdman will never contend for a major, and his Wimbledon final will prove to be like a Baghdatis or Gonzalez type run.

Pete is built for grass and better than Fed. Fed is a better slow hard courter, Pete a better fast courter.
Nadal is the clay goat obviously.
 
BrooklynNY said:
I mean, Berdman kind of his a chump at the end of the day. He has game but he is just one of those talented threats for an upset but just aren't really contenders at all. Losing to Federer is hindsight isn't very humiliating, he has proved to be a great, Berdman will never contend for a major, and his Wimbledon final will prove to be like a Baghdatis or Gonzalez type run.

Pete is built for grass and better than Fed. Fed is a better slow hard courter, Pete a better fast courter.
Nadal is the clay goat obviously.
Click to expand...
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiggght so the only place you'll throw Fed a bone is on the 'SLOW Hard Court' LMAO. Oh,how grateful Roger is that you, the all-knowing, enlightened souls, atleast considered him! He was losing sleep worrying about whether you had place for him.

Ugh! How typical of the Samprastards. And you lot have the nerve to call out other fanbases- in particular those of Fed since obviously he beat your hero's record.
 
Last edited:
mandy01 said:
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiggght so the only place you'll throw Fed a bone is on the 'SLOW Hard Court' LMAO. Oh,how grateful Roger is that you, the all-knowing, enlightened souls, atleast considered him! He was losing sleep worrying about whether you had place for him.

Ugh! How typical of the Samprastards. And you lot have the nerve to call out other fanbases- in particular those of Fed since obviously he beat your hero's record.
Click to expand...

I wasn't going to comment and leave this thread alone, but I couldn't agree with you more.

Interesting that people want to make the distinction between slow and fast hardcourts. Just seems like a way to one up Sampras to me. I mean I could just as well say fast grass Pete>Fed, slow grass Fed>Pete. Not that it would make a whole lot of sense since at the end of the day it's pretty simple.

As of now Pete>Fed on grass. NO fast/slow grass bullcrap. Just grass.

And Fed>Pete on hardcourts.
 
Last edited:
DragonBlaze said:
I wasn't going to comment and leave this thread alone, but I couldn't agree with you more.

Interesting that people want to make the distinction between slow and fast hardcourts. Just seems like a way to one up Sampras to me. I mean I could just as well say fast grass Pete>>Fed, slow grass Fed>Pete. Not that it would make a whole lot of sense since at the end of the day it's pretty simple.

As of now Pete>Fed on grass. NO fast/slow grass bullcrap. Just grass.

And Fed>Pete on hardcourts.
Click to expand...




Great post and exactly what I thought when I read that hilariously biased post.

Btw why make a distinction for Pete on fastgrass by saying that he is ">>fed"? If this is true then federer is also ">>Pete" on slow grass.

Mayb fed fans should come up with crappy un-objective arguments as well, like "federer won 65 consecutive matches on grass and sampras didn't. That means Fed is grass goat while Sampras sux!!!! Lol"
 
Last edited:
Sid_Vicious said:
Great post and exactly what I thought when I read that hilariously biased post.

Btw why make a distinction for Pete on fastgrass by saying that he is ">>fed"? If this is true then federer is also ">>Pete" on slow grass.

Mayb fed fans should come up with crappy un-objective arguments as well, like "federer won 65 consecutive matches on grass and sampras didn't. That means Fed is grass goat while Sampras sux!!!! Lol"
Click to expand...

Ah good pick up, that was an accident, fixed it :).

I dunno why people have so much problem just giving players their due. Nope, it's all about dragging someone down. Is SetSampras still around, I can just see him giving Pete the edge against Fed even on clay :lol:
 
FEDERERNADAL13 said:
And berdy got to the finals! Alot better than the quarters like 18 y.o. Fed got ;)
Click to expand...

A player like Berdych in the Wimbledon finals only reflects the quality of grass courters of this era anyway. Once there even a so so Nadal barely broke a sweat in crusing past him in straight sets.
 
NadalAgassi said:
A player like Berdych in the Wimbledon finals only reflects the quality of grass courters of this era anyway. Once there even a so so Nadal barely broke a sweat in crusing past him in straight sets.
Click to expand...

Really? what does it tell about the quality of grass courters when malivai washington and cedric pioline made the finals?
 
BrooklynNY said:
I mean, Berdman kind of his a chump at the end of the day. He has game but he is just one of those talented threats for an upset but just aren't really contenders at all. Losing to Federer is hindsight isn't very humiliating, he has proved to be a great, Berdman will never contend for a major, and his Wimbledon final will prove to be like a Baghdatis or Gonzalez type run.
Click to expand...

Actually Berdych in 2010 had a better year than Fed did in 2001, Sampras didn't lose to a 23-24 year old Fed, he lost to a green Fed that wouldn't reach another slam QF until 2 years later.

Though if we count Fed's upsets on grass than we should also look at some HC slams upsets Sampras had like Yzaga or Corretja for example.

BrooklynNY said:
Pete is built for grass and better than Fed. Fed is a better slow hard courter, Pete a better fast courter.
Nadal is the clay goat obviously.
Click to expand...

Actually (IMO of course, wouldn't want it to come off as I'm stating a fact, that would be arrogant) Fed is better on slow HC, better on medium HC and arguably Pete's equal on fast HC for now(better hope Fed doesn't bag another USO).

Also funny you forgot to mention clay, I'd go as far as to say FO title and 4 finals trumps one SF but that's just me of course and I'm extremely biased unlike such Pete fans like yoursef of course (who also are supposed to be Nadal fans as well, LOL).

Pete is better on grass and indoors (carpet especially), I won't argue that.
 
Sid_Vicious said:
Great post and exactly what I thought when I read that hilariously biased post.

Btw why make a distinction for Pete on fastgrass by saying that he is ">>fed"? If this is true then federer is also ">>Pete" on slow grass.

Mayb fed fans should come up with crappy un-objective arguments as well, like "federer won 65 consecutive matches on grass and sampras didn't. That means Fed is grass goat while Sampras sux!!!! Lol"
Click to expand...

Notice how Sampras is a better fast court player than Fed but on the other hand Roger is not a better slow court player than Pete but better slow HC player, I guess clay isn't a slow surface :) or maybe Pete is Fed's equal on clay and Fed would have lost to Schaller, Delgado and Scud at FO as well, you never know (how far delusions go).

Not to mention there are medium speed courts(and HCs) as well, we should also include them as a separate category :).

As far as new arguments go, well Fed never lost in Wimbledon at his peak(while Pete got owned by Krajicek in his peak years LOL LOL), then Fed never lost in straights at Wimbledon since he first won it(again Krajicek issue) or we could also add that Fed never lost to a teenager at Wimbledon since he won it first(19 year old Fed issue).
 
Last edited:
zagor said:
Notice how Sampras is a better fast court player than Fed but on the other hand Roger is not a better slow court player than Pete but better slow HC player, I guess clay isn't a slow surface :) or maybe Pete is Fed's equal on clay and Fed would have lost to Schaller, Delgado and Scud at FO as well, you never know (how far delusions go).

Not to mention there are medium speed courts(and HCs) as well, we should also include them as a separate category :).
Click to expand...

I thought it was implied that neither of them are in the conversation on clay so that surface isn't being taken into account, while fast court is a collective term for grass and some hard courts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Best male player per surface/conditions - 70s, 9080s, 90s, 00s, 10s
Replies
9
Views
1K
nolefam_2024
nolefam_2024
S
Titles By Surface
Replies
6
Views
1K
coloskier
C
D
  • Poll Poll
Justine vs Venus: who is greater?
7 8 9
Replies
431
Views
35K
THUNDERVOLLEY
THUNDERVOLLEY
N
An Easier Question: GOAT by Grand Slam and by Surface
2
Replies
50
Views
2K
Cenc
C
Blinkism
Why I think Wimbledon is not slow grass.
10 11 12
Replies
597
Views
26K
LPShanet
L
Back
Top