GOAT by surface

[zagor]

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.

Yes but he was specifically comparing Fed and Sampras, he didn't say Fed is a GOAT (slow) HC player or something but that he's better than Pete on slow HC.

Although now that I read it again, in the context of the thread perhaps I musenderstood it.

Either way IMO it's stupid to divide it on slow HC, fast HC etc. Fed has more AO titles than Pete and the same number of USO titles and he also had some nice winning streaks on that surface so for me he's better HC player of the two.

 

[NadalAgassi]

Really? what does it tell about the quality of grass courters when malivai washington and cedric pioline made the finals?

Cedric Pioline is by far a better grass court player than Tomas Berdych. He actually had a wonderful all court/all around game as opposed to Berdych who is simply a ball basher (and not even one of the best ones at that). If he were mentally tougher he would have much more success in his career than his 2 slam finals. Washington was serving much bigger at that Wimbledon, coming to net more, and is a better athlete than Berdych, so in theory has a better game for grass as well. That years Wimbledon was also the flukiest one of the 90s with all the rain delays and early upsets.

 

[tennis_pro]

Cedric Pioline is by far a better grass court player than Tomas Berdych. He actually had a wonderful all court/all around game as opposed to Berdych who is simply a ball basher (and not even one of the best ones at that). If he were mentally tougher he would have much more success in his career than his 2 slam finals. Washington was serving much bigger at that Wimbledon, coming to net more, and is a better athlete than Berdych, so in theory has a better game for grass as well. That years Wimbledon was also the flukiest one of the 90s with all the rain delays and early upsets.

Berdych road to the final was anything but a fluke. The 4-5 month period starting from Miami that year ending at Wimbledon was the best tennis he's played and it took him to no 6 or 7 in the rankings.

He took out Federer in 4 sets and then Djokovic in 3. He'd have a shot at Nadal if the stake was smaller (like in a qf or sf match).

 

[tennis_pro]

Cedric Pioline is by far a better grass court player than Tomas Berdych. He actually had a wonderful all court/all around game as opposed to Berdych who is simply a ball basher (and not even one of the best ones at that). If he were mentally tougher he would have much more success in his career than his 2 slam finals. Washington was serving much bigger at that Wimbledon, coming to net more, and is a better athlete than Berdych, so in theory has a better game for grass as well. That years Wimbledon was also the flukiest one of the 90s with all the rain delays and early upsets.

Btw every other final in 2003-2011 had top top players in the final. Federer, Philippoussis, Roddick, Nadal, Djokovic were the only finalists. So just as 1996 was a fluke according to you, so was 2010.

It's not the quality of the players on grass which suck, it's the grass itself which disallows them to play some classic s-v. You'd see way more s-v if the old grass somehow came back.

 

[NadalAgassi]

You consider a past his prime Philippoussis a top player. Anyway I agree the grass surface itself today is a big problem. I am not sure if we would see much classic S-V even with the old grass today though. Who are the serve and volleyers even existing in todays game. Then again players train to play to the surface, and the type of surfaces today, so that probably has something to do with it.

 

[tennis_pro]

You consider a past his prime Philippoussis a top player. Anyway I agree the grass surface itself today is a big problem. I am not sure if we would see much classic S-V even with the old grass today though. Who are the serve and volleyers even existing in todays game. Then again players train to play to the surface, and the type of surfaces today, so that probably has something to do with it.

There's no such thing as prime or post-prime Phillppoussis. When he was on he could beat anyone, when he wasn't he could lose to to 100 ranked player. He was definately on throughout 2003 Wimbledon.

 

[tennis_pro]

You consider a past his prime Philippoussis a top player. Anyway I agree the grass surface itself today is a big problem. I am not sure if we would see much classic S-V even with the old grass today though. Who are the serve and volleyers even existing in todays game. Then again players train to play to the surface, and the type of surfaces today, so that probably has something to do with it.

Back in the 90's there were more players who could serve-and-volley because not only it payed off at fast grass of WImbledon but also on lightning quick carpet courts or even most of the hard courts. Even if you brought back old speed of grass at Wimbledon, performing such style everywhere else would be suicide.

 

[BrooklynNY]

The Reason I didn't mention Federer for clay is because yes, clay is a slow surface and it's already assumed that Federer is better than Pete on slower surfaces, including slow hardcourts, and clay, which I didn't mention because there really isn't a reason to. Yes, Fed is better than Pete on clay, but this thread is about GOAT on surface, and Fed is not the clay GOAT, that's all.

 

[Benhur]

Either way IMO it's stupid to divide it on slow HC, fast HC etc. Fed has more AO titles than Pete and the same number of USO titles and he also had some nice winning streaks on that surface so for me he's better HC player of the two.

I know. These detailed divisions give me a budah smile. I marvel at the extraordinary sensitivity to court speeds, that allows posters to detect and classify the slightest variations years into the past. It's a gift I don't possess. Sampras, when on, kind of made most courts look veryfast. So did Federer.

Anyway, on anything but clay, I would give Federer and Sampras eaqual chances to beat each other when both at their best. No need to split hairs about surface speeds.

Which means that what really sets them apart in tennis ability is clay. I doubt Sampras could win more than 1 match out of 10 on clay against Federer. And even 1 match seems doubtful. Elsewhere, I see them as equals.

 

[zagor]

I know. These detailed divisions give me a budah smile. I marvel at the extraordinary sensitivity to court speeds, that allows posters to detect and classify the slightest variations years into the past. It's a gift I don't possess. Sampras, when on, kind of made most courts look veryfast. So did Federer.

Anyway, on anything but clay, I would give Federer and Sampras eaqual chances to beat each other when both at their best. No need to split hairs about surface speeds.

Which means that what really sets them apart in tennis ability is clay. I doubt Sampras could win more than 1 match out of 10 on clay against Federer. And even 1 match seems doubtful. Elsewhere, I see them as equals.

It's hard to say how would they match-up, so many factors come into play and one match they played is too small of a sample size and neither player was anywhere near their prime (Fed still green and Pete long past his best tennis)so we can't conclude much from that match except that their matches would have been amazing to watch and with tight scorelines which common sense would dictate anyway.

Personally I'd give Fed the edge on rebound ace(AO in the 90s and 2000s until 2008), Pete the edge at Wimbledon(modern grass and old grass regardless) and I'd call them pretty even at USO, I think their potential USO meetings would have been bloodbaths. So yes off clay, it would have been very tough to call a winner.

Regarding clay I disagree with your take on it, Pete wasn't Roddick or Blake on clay, he reached 3 FO QFs, one SF and won Rome. Fed has lost to worse CC players than Pete such as Volandri or Stepanek and Pete while not a CC juggernaut or anything had wins over some of the premier claycourters in his era(like Bruguera, Courier, Muster etc.) on that surface. So while I'd give Fed a definite edge on that surface (more so than Pete's edge over Fed on say grass and carpet) I could definitely see Pete scoring a few wins over Fed on the red stuff here and there.

However disregarding theories on how Fed and Pete would match up at their best on various surfaces when talking ranking players overall by surface I tend to look at stats more and for me Fed is a better HC player, more HC slams, more HC titles, more HC masters and I feel just more overall domination on that surface put him above Pete for me.

 

[fed_rulz]

Cedric Pioline is by far a better grass court player than Tomas Berdych. He actually had a wonderful all court/all around game as opposed to Berdych who is simply a ball basher (and not even one of the best ones at that). If he were mentally tougher he would have much more success in his career than his 2 slam finals. Washington was serving much bigger at that Wimbledon, coming to net more, and is a better athlete than Berdych, so in theory has a better game for grass as well. That years Wimbledon was also the flukiest one of the 90s with all the rain delays and early upsets.

based on what? the term "grass court tennis" has a different meaning now when compared to the 90s, so it is pretty ingenious to claim that Pioline is a "better grass court" player than Berdych.

 

[fed_rulz]

It's hard to say how would they match-up, so many factors come into play and one match they played is too small of a sample size and neither player was anywhere near their prime (Fed still green and Pete long past his best tennis)so we can't conclude much from that match except that their matches would have been amazing to watch and with tight scorelines which common sense would dictate anyway.

Personally I'd give Fed the edge on rebound ace(AO in the 90s and 2000s until 2008), Pete the edge at Wimbledon(modern grass and old grass regardless) and I'd call them pretty even at USO, I think their potential USO meetings would have been bloodbaths. So yes off clay, it would have been very tough to call a winner.

Regarding clay I disagree with your take on it, Pete wasn't Roddick or Blake on clay, he reached 3 FO QFs, one SF and won Rome. Fed has lost to worse CC players than Pete such as Volandri or Stepanek and Pete while not a CC juggernaut or anything had wins over some of the premier claycourters in his era(like Bruguera, Courier, Muster etc.) on that surface. So while I'd give Fed a definite edge on that surface (more so than Pete's edge over Fed on say grass and carpet) I could definitely see Pete scoring a few wins over Fed on the red stuff here and there.

However disregarding theories on how Fed and Pete would match up at their best on various surfaces when talking ranking players overall by surface I tend to look at stats more and for me Fed is a better HC player, more HC slams, more HC titles, more HC masters and I feel just more overall domination on that surface put him above Pete for me.

Sampras has nothing to hurt Federer with. In his prime, Federer read big servers like no other, and pete would be no exception. once the point starts, it'd be curtains for Sampras. Sampras for sure has no prayer in hell to break Federer.

 

[Cup8489]

Sampras has nothing to hurt Federer with. In his prime, Federer read big servers like no other, and pete would be no exception. once the point starts, it'd be curtains for Sampras. Sampras for sure has no prayer in hell to break Federer.

while i agree with you on returning big serves, sampras would have looks at Federer's serve.. but at the same time Federer has a good service GAME so even if sampras got in the points he'd still be only partially there to a break.

Federer DID hit a return winner against Sampras at 2001 Wimbledon.. and Sampras, by his own admission, was serving pretty good during the whole match.

Honestly, I think they'd have a fairly close h2h, slightly in Federer's favor, IMHO. Just more explosive and high quality tennis than the 2001 match.

But, to the people saying sampras was far removed from his best tennis...do you forget he was defending champion? How is that far removed?

 

[Benhur]

Regarding clay I disagree with your take on it, Pete wasn't Roddick or Blake on clay, he reached 3 FO QFs, one SF and won Rome. Fed has lost to worse CC players than Pete such as Volandri or Stepanek and Pete while not a CC juggernaut or anything had wins over some of the premier claycourters in his era(like Bruguera, Courier, Muster etc.) on that surface. So while I'd give Fed a definite edge on that surface (more so than Pete's edge over Fed on say grass and carpet) I could definitely see Pete scoring a few wins over Fed on the red stuff here and there.

That part (bolded) is certainly a big understatement.

Federer was clearly the second best claycourter of his time. Sampras results on clay are really depressing for a player of his caliber, easily the worst of all the number one players in the open era (including Roddick, by the way). Losing in the first round or the early rounds of clay tournaments became pretty routine for Sampras even within his prime. For reference (since you mention Roddick and Stepanek as examples of terrible claycourters), note that Sampras' winning percentage on clay (62.5), is three points lower than Roddick's, and only about two points higher than Stepanek.

Federer on clay is in a completely different league than Sampras. Everywhere else they are more or less in the same league.

 

[IvanisevicServe]

Slow Hardcourt:

1. Agassi
2. Federer
3. Djokovic (gonna call it early, and he'll probably end up #1 here)

Fast Hardcourt:

1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Lendl

Clay:

1. Nadal
2. Borg
3. Vilas

Grass:

1. Sampras
2. Federer
3. Borg

I rank Sampras higher on grass, but I could easily make an argument for Federer being the better Wimbledon player. Simply look at the guys Federer lost sets to from 03-09...it's a very short list, and features only big name or fairly big name players from his era. Not so with Sampras, who lost sets to several guys who were just journeymen at best (sub-top 40 caliber).

But the grass was completely different in his era, so the comparison is kind of moot.

 

[BukShy]

i dont like theese threads.

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

Fed >>> Sampras on grass. Sampras lost to some nobodies on grass during his peak.

 

[timnz]

Who?

Fed >>> Sampras on grass. Sampras lost to some nobodies on grass during his peak.

Who? Sampras' peak was from 1993 to 1997. The only really big match on Grass he lost in that period was to Richard Krajicek at the 1996 Wimbledon - but Richard was hardly a nobody (he went onto win the title that year and was often in the top 10 and had many wins against top players). Do you mean Queen's club?

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

Who? Sampras' peak was from 1993 to 1997. The only really big match on Grass he lost in that period was to Richard Krajicek at the 1996 Wimbledon - but Richard was hardly a nobody (he went onto win the title that year and was often in the top 10 and had many wins against top players). Do you mean Queen's club?

You're just conveniently defining Pete's prime when he won 7/8 Wimbledons after the fact of them happening. His prime/peak started before that after he won his first slam.

 

[HotRoll]

You're just conveniently defining Pete's prime when he won 7/8 Wimbledons after the fact of them happening. His prime/peak started before that after he won his first slam.

I commence my post:

No, he just got lucky. His real prime began in the end of 1992.

I conclude my post:

 

[wilkinru]

Funny how I'd put Federer #3 on the clay goat list.

 

[Bobby Jr]

Sampras has nothing to hurt Federer with. In his prime, Federer read big servers like no other, and pete would be no exception. once the point starts, it'd be curtains for Sampras. Sampras for sure has no prayer in hell to break Federer.

I'm inclined to agree with this bolded part. Federer doesn't play many guys with a serve as good as Sampras' but during most rally situations Federer would be way, way too good for Sampras.

That said - someone will say it anyway - strings have come a long way since Sampras' prime. That could make some difference. How much, who knows?

 

[Bobby Jr]

But, to the people saying sampras was far removed from his best tennis...do you forget he was defending champion? How is that far removed?

This ^... and he was still good enough to win the US Open two years later also.

 

[timnz]

You said Peak

You're just conveniently defining Pete's prime when he won 7/8 Wimbledons after the fact of them happening. His prime/peak started before that after he won his first slam.

You said Peak - so I went on that rather than Prime.

However, even if you go from 1990 US Open to 2002 US Open - how many bad lossed on Grass did he have?

Perhaps 1991 Wimbledon and Definitely 2002 Wimbledon - but what else?

 

[Towser83]

Hardcourt I would say Federer.

Grass and clay are tougher, because Borg has got a huge claim on both and Federer and Sampras also have a big claim on grass.

Borg has a big winning streak on grass and him and Federer also have the 5 sonsecutive Wimbledons, but Sampras has 7 Wimbledons overall.

Something that I find funny is people saying Federer had no competition on grass (which is true in a way, grass is probably the most specialist surface and the one where most players are not at their best) but people act like Sampras had incredibly tough competition. In my opinion, Sampras had some cakewalk Wimbledon's where he had no-one that good on grass to trouble him at all. I mean -

1993-
beats guys ranked 121, 58, 108, 332 before beating 3 great players Agassi (13) Becker (4) and Courier (2). Even then, Agassi was not great on grass, his Wimbledon win was highly unexpected and in part due to Goran's fragile mind, Agassi only made 2 Wimbledon finals in his career (don't know if he ever won another grass title even). Becker was playing 8 years after first winning Wimbledon and despite being number 4 hadn't had a great year losing 1st round at the AO and 2nd round at the FO. Jim Courier was a great player but did all his slam winning (and slam finals) in the narrow time frame of 1991-1993. Wimbledon 1993 was the last slam final he ever reached, so in decline? I'd say so.

1994-
again he plays guys outside the top 30 (but better seeded than 1993) until the quarters from which point he plays Michael Chang (8 ) - good player but a one slam wonder and I don't think he ever won a title on grass, Todd Martin (9) - solid player, good on grass but not a threat at the highest level (he won 8 titles in his career) and Goran (5). That's a good win, even so Goran did only win one slam in his career.

1995-
he beats guys ranked 120, 174 (young Henman), 73, 60 (young Rusedski), 180, before squeezing past headcase Goran (6) in 5 sets and Becker (4) now 10 years on from his first Wimbledon win. Again Becker had lost early in both the AO and FO, Goran lost in the 1st round of both.

1996 - loses to Krajicek

1997-
The only guy from the top 10 he plays is Becker(18 ).. now 12 years on from his first Wimbledon title. Then beats Woodbridge (37) and Pioline (44)

1998-
plays 2 top 20 players all tournament (Enqvist -17, and Henman - 18 ) before beating Goran (25) in 5 sets

1999-
Beats some lower ranked guys before seeing off Phillapousis (11), Henman (6) and Agassi (4). Henman was a good player, but was never going to win a major, Agassi is a great player but not on grass.

2000.
Until the final he played no-one in the top 40. In the semis he played Voltchkov, ranked 237! He then beat Rafter (21) in the final who's a good player but was pretty poor that year. That's a pretty woeful challenge.

So while Federer didn't have massive competition on grass, I don't see how Sampras did either. By my count he had to play a top 10 player 9 times in his 7 title wins, Federer 10 times in his 6 wins.I could have added them wrong. And I don't think the guys Sampras was playing were that great in the main part - some great players but ones that were either metally unstable (Goran) not wonderful on grass (Agassi) early bloomer that wasn't the same player (Becker) good on grass but lacking the ability to win big (Henman).

So....maybe the grass GOAT is Borg.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

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.

I guess this comes down to which distinction carries more weight (outside of the ultimate tennis achivement in winning the Grand Slam): number of titles won at a major, the competition faced to win the titles or how many finals reached? When we isolate it to number titles won at a major, Sampras and Federer are tied, and one cannot take anything away from either in this regard.

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.

Agreed. With the evidence strongly suggesting the rapidly aging Federer may never win another major (almost two years since his last win), there's no valid reason to even refer to Federer in the grass consideration.

Yet Federer losing 70% of the matches he ever played against Nadal means nothing.

That's what happens when the worst fans in all of tennis lie and spin to pump up their false god.

 

[NadalAgassi]

Slow Hardcourt:

1. Agassi
2. Federer
3. Djokovic (gonna call it early, and he'll probably end up #1 here)

Fast Hardcourt:

1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Lendl

Clay:

1. Nadal
2. Borg
3. Vilas

Grass:

1. Sampras
2. Federer
3. Borg

I rank Sampras higher on grass, but I could easily make an argument for Federer being the better Wimbledon player. Simply look at the guys Federer lost sets to from 03-09...it's a very short list, and features only big name or fairly big name players from his era. Not so with Sampras, who lost sets to several guys who were just journeymen at best (sub-top 40 caliber).

But the grass was completely different in his era, so the comparison is kind of moot.

I am not sure how you can call Vilas #3 on clay if you are going to call Borg only #2 as Vilas was nowhere near Borg's league on clay, their matches were complete laughers over the years. #3 on clay would have to be someone like Rosewall, or maybe even Lendl, Wilander, or Kuerten.

 

[abmk]

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

becker above federer on grass ?????

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

You said Peak - so I went on that rather than Prime.

However, even if you go from 1990 US Open to 2002 US Open - how many bad lossed on Grass did he have?

Perhaps 1991 Wimbledon and Definitely 2002 Wimbledon - but what else?

The losses in 91 and 90 at Wimby were beyond bad losses. They were to absolute nobody no names.

 

[abmk]

In the open era, considering achievements and level of play ( for evaluating greatness )

Hard court :

federer

gap

sampras

gap

agassi

..... the rest


grass:

sampras/federer
borg

gap

mcenroe/becker/edberg

...... the rest

clay:

nadal/borg

.........the rest

carpet is quite murky with sampras, becker, lendl and mcenroe in the list

 

[abmk]

At the peak of their powers:

fast HC:

federer
sampras
lendl/mac/connors

slow HC:

federer
safin
agassi/djokovic

grass:

federer
sampras
mcenroe
becker
borg

carpet:

Becker/sampras
Lendl/mac

clay:

borg/nadal
kuerten

......

 

[PSNELKE]

GOATs by surface:

Clay: Borg
Grass: Federer
HC: Federer (so far)
Overall: Federer

Since you are so much into the DATA, stats and facts.. better check this one.
Though I guess as soon as the data favors Nadal, it doesn´t mean half as much as for the others.

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

Since you are so much into the DATA, stats and facts.. better check this one.
Though I guess as soon as the data favors Nadal, it doesn´t mean half as much as for the others.

No no, the facts above all. Fact Borg is tied with Nadal for most FO slams. Fact FO and other surfaces played a lot differently back then than they did today. Fact Borg accomplished everything at a younger age. Slam is the only constant from 70s to now. Master's did not even exist back then so you can't penalize Borg for that.

 

[PSNELKE]

Clay

Nadal-Borg-Lendl

Grass

Sampras-Federer-Borg

Hardcourt

Fed-Sampras-Connors

Carpet

Jonny Mac-Lendl-Connors

 

[NadalAgassi]

becker above federer on grass ?????

Not nearly as strange as people like ranking Federer over Sampras on grass. Now that is majorly hilarious! As for Becker, given that Sampras denied him 3 Wimbledon titles which would have put him on par with Federer's 6 (and the only top player who denied Federer one was Nadal once who ****s say is a mug on grass anyway), that his longevity as a top grass courter is many years more than Federer's, and that he played on real grass against much tougher overall grass competition and still made 7 finals just like Federer, and this his serving and volleying was far superior to Federer, I have no problem ranking him over Federer taking all into account.

Even if I put Federer over Becker though, Federer still wouldnt make my top 3 which is Sampras, Laver, and Borg, all who quite legitimately can be put over Federer on grass, as much as ****s whale when anyone rates their hero less than #1 at everything. I am quite surprised on forum planet Fed nobody has complained I didnt put him as a top 3 clay courter all time yet.

 

[PSNELKE]

No no, the facts above all. Fact Borg is tied with Nadal for most FO slams. Fact FO and other surfaces played a lot differently back then than they did today. Fact Borg accomplished everything at a younger age. Slam is the only constant from 70s to now. Master's did not even exist back then so you can't penalize Borg for that.

Both won there 6th FO title at age 24 (almost 25 - both being born in early June).
Now let´s compare:
Nadal - 6 RG's, 32 clay titles, 92.7 win % on clay
Bjorn - 6 RG's, 30 clay titles, 86.3 win % on clay

I think Nadal wins here, if I´m not mistaken.
Also, weren´t there even more CC events back then, than these days?
What´s the next "fact", buddy?

 

[slice serve ace]

Sampras has nothing to hurt Federer with. In his prime, Federer read big servers like no other, and pete would be no exception. once the point starts, it'd be curtains for Sampras. Sampras for sure has no prayer in hell to break Federer.

No, but A.Costa, Henman, Kiefer, Jimmy Wang, Marc Gicquel, Blake, Paul Capdeville, Roddick, F.Lopez, Maximo Gonzalez, Thiago Alves, Stepanek, Lee Hyung, Koubek, Fish, Schalken, Mathieu, Nicolas Mahut, Ančić did, at Wimbledon and US Open, when he was winning 5 in a row each.

 

[pc1]

Both won there 6th FO title at age 24 (almost 25 - both being born in early June).
Now let´s compare:
Nadal - 6 RG's, 32 clay titles, 92.7 win % on clay
Bjorn - 6 RG's, 30 clay titles, 86.3 win % on clay

I think Nadal wins here, if I´m not mistaken.
Also, weren´t there even more CC events back then, than these days?
What´s the next "fact", buddy?

I don't have the answers but not all of Borg's tournaments are counted in the ATP records. Lot of old WCT tournaments among others weren't counted. Borg won about 40 tournaments more than is on record with the ATP so the clay titles for Borg and the percentages may be inaccurate.

Nadal may still look better but we don't have all the facts.

 

[TMF]

Funny how I'd put Federer #3 on the clay goat list.

If you have said this in the "former pro player talk" forum, some of the old-timers will say you are too young, lack of knowledge/experience and therefore cannot formulate an accurate opinion as them. Ignorant/bias will be held against you and they are always right and you are wrong.

 

[MotherMarjorie]

If you have said this in the "former pro player talk" forum, some of the old-timers will say you are too young, lack of knowledge/experience and therefore cannot formulate an accurate opinion as them. Ignorant/bias will be held against you and they are always right and you are wrong.

From what Mother Marjorie has read from some of them in the "former pro player talk" section, their fickle finger of judgement should be pointed right back at themselves. She was not very impressed by the overall knowledge, especially of women's tennis history.

There is one vitriol curmudgeon in particular who interjects himself into a discussion by questioning your opinions, then throws a fit once you call out his ignorance of the topic. He always adds some comment like "silly woman" to bolster his egomania. That's okay. Mother Marjorie cut the trash like a hot knife through butter. Oh, yes, she did. You betcha!

Mother Marjorie Ann
Empress of Talk Tennis Warehouse

 

[pc1]

From what Mother Marjorie has read from some of them in the "former pro player talk" section, their fickle finger of judgement should be pointed right back at themselves. She was not very impressed by the overall knowledge, especially of women's tennis history.

There is one vitriol curmudgeon in particular who interjects himself into a discussion by questioning your opinions, then throws a fit once you call out his ignorance of the topic. He always adds some comment like "silly woman" to bolster his egomania. That's okay. Mother Marjorie cut the trash like a hot knife through butter. Oh, yes, she did. You betcha!

Mother Marjorie Ann
Empress of Talk Tennis Warehouse

Mother Marjorie,

Someone should for fun do a GOAT by surface for the Women.

I'll mention a few names on some surfaces in no order.
Grass-Navratilova, Graf, King, Court, Lenglen, Wills, Marble, Connolly, Serena
Clay-Evert, Seles, Graf, Court, Wills, Lenglen, Connolly, Henin
Hard-Navratilova, Graf, Seles, Serena, Clijsters, Henin

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

Both won there 6th FO title at age 24 (almost 25 - both being born in early June).
Now let´s compare:
Nadal - 6 RG's, 32 clay titles, 92.7 win % on clay
Bjorn - 6 RG's, 30 clay titles, 86.3 win % on clay

I think Nadal wins here, if I´m not mistaken.
Also, weren´t there even more CC events back then, than these days?
What´s the next "fact", buddy?

Here you go muchachos

p.s. Borg was younger when he won his final FO.

I don't have the answers but not all of Borg's tournaments are counted in the ATP records. Lot of old WCT tournaments among others weren't counted. Borg won about 40 tournaments more than is on record with the ATP so the clay titles for Borg and the percentages may be inaccurate.

Nadal may still look better but we don't have all the facts.

 

[urban]

It would be fair, to count the majors and the percentages only in the post 1988 era, because prior the surfaces were different from today. Connors for instance won USOs 5 times on 3 different surfaces, with 2 finals lost on har tru. If hard courts had been implemented at USO prior to 1978, it is very probable that he would have won 7 USOs. He won just one AO on grass, in just 2 tries on grass. Had he played on hard courts there under current conditions, he would have won say 4 AOs on hard. Those numbers of 10 or 11 hard courts majors are very probable, not just speculative out of the air and would make him the runaway leader on hard courts.
On carpet, the current generation has not much practice, and the players of the 80s and 90s are widely in front. On grass, it's the problem, if you count only Wimbies (than Sampras is the greatest) or other grass majors, too. People like Tilden or Emerson won 10 majors on grass, Tilden without competing ever at AO and seldom at Wimbledon in his prime.

 

[Towser83]

I guess this comes down to which distinction carries more weight (outside of the ultimate tennis achivement in winning the Grand Slam): number of titles won at a major, the competition faced to win the titles or how many finals reached? When we isolate it to number titles won at a major, Sampras and Federer are tied, and one cannot take anything away from either in this regard.

Don't you rate defending titles (as it shows dominance) when players are tied on wins at the US Open? 5 in a row shows utter dominance.I'm sure we had this argument about Venus vs Justine...

Agreed. With the evidence strongly suggesting the rapidly aging Federer may never win another major (almost two years since his last win), there's no valid reason to even refer to Federer in the grass consideration.

erm, six titles, 5 in a row (greater period of dominance than Sampras, on a par with Borg) I do agree though, it was no surprise Sampras was beaten in 2001. Even in 2000 he only won Wimbledon because he faced such low ranked opponents and had no serious challenge, however it was a surprise that Federer beat him. Federer at the time had no grass court pedigree, and was a tempermental talent, a few years off discovering the key to being a winner. Neither were in their primes, but that's an indication that they probably would have been competetive.

That's what happens when the worst fans in all of tennis lie and spin to pump up their false god.

Sampras barely had any competition on grass either. Becker was 8-12 years after he first won the title and struggling at most majors, Agassi was a surprise winner at Wimbledon and not really a huge threat on grass, Courier won his slams(and made finals) between 1991 and 1993 (wimbledon 1993 being his last slam final) Goran was a headcase (and ultimately as much as I like him, a one slam winner), Henman didn't have the stones to win (or the weapons)... Neither Federer or Sampras had great grasscourt competition. What Sampras DID have though was the drying up of competition at the END of his career when he needed it it the most. This is absolutely undeniable.

Not nearly as strange as people like ranking Federer over Sampras on grass. Now that is majorly hilarious! As for Becker, given that Sampras denied him 3 Wimbledon titles which would have put him on par with Federer's 6 (and the only top player who denied Federer one was Nadal once who ****s say is a mug on grass anyway), that his longevity as a top grass courter is many years more than Federer's, and that he played on real grass against much tougher overall grass competition and still made 7 finals just like Federer, and this his serving and volleying was far superior to Federer, I have no problem ranking him over Federer taking all into account.

Even if I put Federer over Becker though, Federer still wouldnt make my top 3 which is Sampras, Laver, and Borg, all who quite legitimately can be put over Federer on grass, as much as ****s whale when anyone rates their hero less than #1 at everything. I am quite surprised on forum planet Fed nobody has complained I didnt put him as a top 3 clay courter all time yet.

I wouldn't put him ahead, but saying the players Sampras played were grass greats is wrong. Really he lacked competition just like Federer.

I also wouldn't put Federer in the top 3 clay players - he just was good enough to adapt his game to clay to the point where he could hang with Nadal and occasionally beat him, plus Guga, and owning Coria, gaudio etc. However, using your "Becker would have 6 Wimbledons if it wasn't for Sampras" you can easily say Nadal stopped Federer from winning 6 French Opens, plus 10 clay masters. Which would make him a big candidate for the top 3. In fact Federer is more robbed by Nadal than Becker is by Sampras - just one of those matches was a final, in 1997 Becker lost in the quarterfinals, so given he was 29 and in a supposedly strong grass court era, how certain can you be he would have won Wimbledon if not for Sampras? Apparently a 29 year old Sampras was too old to beat a novice Federer, so becker losing to Sampras 12 years after first winning the title is no surprise and in a strong era he probably wouldn't win the title. Most of Fed's defeats by Nadal at RG were in the final and he'd have likely won against whoever else he'd have played (possible exception Djokovic, but 30 year old Fed beat prime Djokovic there, THIS year)

 

[Benhur]

I don't have the answers but not all of Borg's tournaments are counted in the ATP records. Lot of old WCT tournaments among others weren't counted. Borg won about 40 tournaments more than is on record with the ATP so the clay titles for Borg and the percentages may be inaccurate.

The Borg career statistics wikipedia page lists 38 titles (all surfaces) under two categories called "Non-ATP, exhibition, invitational and special events.”

The first of these categories is for events featuring a draw of at least 8 players. In this category Borg has 10 titles, of which 1 is on clay.

The second is for events featuring fewer than 8 players. In this category Borg has 28 titles, of which 11 are on clay.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Björn_Borg_career_statistics

 

[zagor]

That part (bolded) is certainly a big understatement.

Federer was clearly the second best claycourter of his time. Sampras results on clay are really depressing for a player of his caliber, easily the worst of all the number one players in the open era (including Roddick, by the way). Losing in the first round or the early rounds of clay tournaments became pretty routine for Sampras even within his prime. For reference (since you mention Roddick and Stepanek as examples of terrible claycourters), note that Sampras' winning percentage on clay (62.5), is three points lower than Roddick's, and only about two points higher than Stepanek.

Federer on clay is in a completely different league than Sampras. Everywhere else they are more or less in the same league.

I never look at the winning percentage as be and of all, sure Pete's worst on clay is comparable to the worst of Roddick and Stepanek but they never reached his highs on that surface (again Rome title, 3 QFs and SF at RG, neither Roddick nor Radek can come close to matching that) which is what is really important when we're discussing potential prime meetings between Federer and Sampras as Pete would have to be playing very well to reach later rounds to even have a chance to meet Fed.

Stepanek, Roddick and Volandri don't have a single FO QF between them, they're far worse performers on clay compared to Sampras at the most important CC tourney (FO).

 

[zagor]

Sampras has nothing to hurt Federer with. In his prime, Federer read big servers like no other, and pete would be no exception. once the point starts, it'd be curtains for Sampras. Sampras for sure has no prayer in hell to break Federer.

You're joking right? One of the best(if not the best serves ever), big FH, great volleys, very clutch performer, very fast at closing the net etc.

Now IMO Fed would have his way with Sampras from the baseline, Fed loves playing one handers and at his peak was the best at dealing with pace/power I've ever seen, however Sampras would not have needed to win the baseline war to win the match, that was not his way. At his best he could take time away from anyone, even Fed. Keep in mind I consider Fed to be a better player and would give him the edge over Sampras on anything apart from grass and carpet but you're severly underrating Sampras here, the guy won 14 slams for a reason.

BTW. No one who ever played the game would be able to neutralize Pete's serve(off clay obviously) to the extent that you're saying Fed would be able to, it's a weapon against any player, period.

 

[Sid_Vicious]

You're joking right? One of the best(if not the best serves ever), big FH, great volleys, very clutch performer, very fast at closing the net etc.

Now IMO Fed would have his way with Sampras from the baseline, Fed loves playing one handers and at his peak was the best at dealing with pace/power I've ever seen, however Sampras would not have needed to win the baseline war to win the match, that was not his way. At his best he could take time away from anyone, even Fed. Keep in mind I consider Fed to be a better player and would give him the edge over Sampras on anything apart from grass and carpet but you're severly underrating Sampras here, the guy won 14 slams for a reason.

BTW. No one who ever played the game would be able to neutralize Pete's serve(off clay obviously) to the extent that you're saying Fed would be able to, it's a weapon against any player, period.

Ah come one, Zagor. Let Fed_Rulz be. His posts beautifully counterbalance the Pete-**** posts.

 

[zagor]

Ah come one, Zagor. Let Fed_Rulz be. His posts beautifully counterbalance the Pete-**** posts.

Well I guess but c'mon it's just too stupid, 2000s Sampras who was lumbering around court, missing slam dunks and having complete fail of a BH isn't the only version of Sampras, the guy was a terrific all-court player in his peak/prime.

I mean while I clash often with Sampras fanboys due to their hatred of Fed, lately I do kinda get how it's infuriating that people just look at player's twilight years, mock his losses in that period and use them to bolster your argument. The reason being because the same thing is happening to Fed and you have all these internet experts claiming how the guy hasn't declined one iota, it's just ridiculous.

 

[zagor]

But, to the people saying sampras was far removed from his best tennis...do you forget he was defending champion? How is that far removed?

One year is a long period in tennis, Fed was the defending Wimbledon champion in 2010 but in his first round against Falla played the worst grasscourt tennis I've ever seen from him, I really mean it, he looked better in his losses to Kafelnikov and Ancic.

Fed was still green no doubt, he would reach another slam QF until 2 years after but Sampras was also on his way out and way past his best tennis.