GOAT by surface

[Towser83]

1993 the semifinalists were Sampras, Becker, Courier, and Edberg. Sampras quarterfinal victim was Agassi.
1994 the semifinalists were Sampras, Becker, Ivanisevic, and Martin
1995 the semifinalists were Sampras, Agassi, Becker, and Ivanisevic

Becker, Agassi, Edberg, Ivanisevic (on grass) >>>>>> Hewitt, Roddick, Grosjean, and Schalken, the main Federer rivals on grass during his dominance (other than Nadal in 2007). Federer never had any period of time with overall competition like that on grass, doesnt even play on real grass but instead the fake grass of today which favors baseliners like Federer and Nadal, and still won fewer Wimbledons.

In 1993 Becker was player EIGHT years after his first Wimbledon title plus he'd had a poor year at the other majors. Great player, but he was great at Wimbledon from 1985-1990. He's not the same era as Pete.

Agassi was a great player but never a great on grass. He surprised everyone by winning Wimbledon and only managed one other final and I don't think he ever won another grass title.

Courier was a good player but won all his slams (and reached all finals) between 1991 and 1993. 1993 was his last slam final, so you could say he was in decline.

Goran I really like and he was very effective on grass but he was a headcase. He was like Safin only he actually won less slams (although if two were on grass maybe he'd have bagged two slams) basically he was too unstable to win the big matches until somehow he did it in 2001.

Todd Martin? SERIOUSLY? Ok he might have been good on grass but he was never ever going to be a player winning big events. The guy won EIGHT titles in his whole career. This is who counts as top competition?! Good player but never a big threat.

Edberg was a great player and even at nearly 6 years older than Pete was still a good player. Even with him though, he never won a slam after 1992 and never made a final after the AO 1993. So he kind of was finished by the start of Pete's reign at Wimbledon. Not that Pete even beat the 27 year old Edberg at that Wimbledon (1993) or in fact at any time on grass ever. So really you can count Edberg out of Pete's tough competition, since he never had to play him on grass once.

Also you say the grass has slowed down and made baseliners more comfortable on grass. Aren't most players basliners these days? So basically now generally any player can play on grass rather than a selective few back in the 90s. Wouldn't that mean more competition? You say baseliners like Federer and Nadal - they're ALL baseliners. Hmmm...

 

[vernonbc]

Also you say the grass has slowed down and made baseliners more comfortable on grass. Aren't most players basliners these days? So basically now generally any player can play on grass rather than a selective few back in the 90s. Wouldn't that mean more competition? Hmmm...

Hmmm indeed. Don't be so logical. You'll completely befuddle some of the posters.

 

[Towser83]

Hmmm indeed. Don't be so logical. You'll completely befuddle some of the posters.

Haha. Thanks. Does seem logicalthough doesn't it? If one guy is the only person able to deal with a surface it's weak competition, if the suface becomes suitable to every player, then that's more competition.

Federer played fine on fast grass and if it was still fast would have had a bigger advantage. On this slower grass an aging Sampras would have a bad time against Nadal and Djokovic, he was really helped out in his last few wins by surface and lack of competition.

 

[vernonbc]

Federer played fine on fast grass and if it was still fast would have had a bigger advantage. On this slower grass an aging Sampras would have a bad time against Nadal and Djokovic, he was really helped out in his last few wins by surface and lack of competition.

Not to get into nitpicking but Fed actually didn't play so fine on fast grass although, of course, he was still pretty young and couldn't be expected to. The grass at Wimby was slowed down in 2001 when he would have been only 19. He didn't win until 2003.

 

[Towser83]

Not to get into nitpicking but Fed actually didn't play so fine on fast grass although, of course, he was still pretty young and couldn't be expected to. The grass at Wimby was slowed down in 2001 when he would have been only 19. He didn't win until 2003.

I thought the grass was still fast in 2001, but if not I guess we'll never know.

 

[TMF]

Haha. Thanks. Does seem logicalthough doesn't it? If one guy is the only person able to deal with a surface it's weak competition, if the suface becomes suitable to every player, then that's more competition.

Federer played fine on fast grass and if it was still fast would have had a bigger advantage. On this slower grass an aging Sampras would have a bad time against Nadal and Djokovic, he was really helped out in his last few wins by surface and lack of competition.

Hmmm indeed. Don't be so logical. You'll completely befuddle some of the posters.

Also, the fast, low bounce grass in the 90s was suitable for s/v players, but some baseliners were managed to sneak in the finals like Couriers and Andre. Goran was Pete's biggest grass rivaly but still lost to a baseliner. However, since Fed became TMF in this era, no s/v player ever made the final(exception of Fed/Flipper in 2003). The slow grass was dominated by all baseliners, and hence, Fed had more competition than Sampras.

 

[TMF]

I thought the grass was still fast in 2001, but if not I guess we'll never know.

I've watched the Fed/Sampras 2001 match a few time and it doesn't seem slow. Maybe b/c that year when they change the grass to rye and people automatically assumed it's slow. And Sampras didn't complain it was slow, but all praise to Fed for his win.

 

[Towser83]

I've watched the Fed/Sampras 2001 match a few time and it doesn't seem slow. Maybe b/c that year when they change the grass to rye and people automatically assumed it's slow. And Sampras didn't complain it was slow, but all praise to Fed for his win.

Yeah and Goran won that year, you'd think that the grass would be fast. I thought it was 2002 but apparently it was changed in 2001. Maybe the soil made it a bit speedier than future years, or just the weather conditions.

 

[NadalAgassi]

In 1993 Becker was player EIGHT years after his first Wimbledon title plus he'd had a poor year at the other majors. Great player, but he was great at Wimbledon from 1985-1990. He's not the same era as Pete.

This myth Becker was no longer a great player in the 90s is a joke. Becker won Australian Open (1991), ATP World Championships (1995), Australian Open (1996). He also played excellent tennis at 94 ATP World Championships (lost tough final to Pete), 96 ATP World Championships (lost one of all time great finals to Pete), 95 Wimbledon (beat #1 Agassi, then lost to Pete in final), 95 U.S Open (lost very tough semi to Agassi). Nobody would rather player Becker of the mid 90s at Wimbledon than Roddick or Hewitt.

Agassi was a great player but never a great on grass. He surprised everyone by winning Wimbledon and only managed one other final and I don't think he ever won another grass title.

Agassi made the semis of Wimbledon 5 times. He won Wimbledon and lost to Sampras in another final. BS that he wasnt a great grass court player. He sure as heck was a better one than Roddick or Hewitt.

BTW his game in theory should be better on grass than Nadals. his return of serve is in another league, his serve is comparable, and he has more compact strokes and is more agressive off the ground. Nadals only real advantage is he is a much better athlete. The fact Nadal has such a better record at Wimbledon is indicative of in part the slower grass today, but also the much weaker grass court field of today too.

Courier was a good player but won all his slams (and reached all finals) between 1991 and 1993. 1993 was his last slam final, so you could say he was in decline.

Fine, but he was still a tougher opponent than 19 year old Nadal in the 2006 final, who had lost to no names in almost everyone of the few grass events he had ever played to that point (and should have lost in straight sets to Robert Kendrick at that years Wimbledon). As well as a tougher opponent than Grosjean who made the semis of Wimbledon of Federers first 2 wins. As well as a tougher opponent than a past his prime Philipoussis who Federer beat in the 2003 final. He isnt a great grass court player but he is a champion who knows how to get the job done in big matches, which many of the guys Federer played in late rounds at Wimbledon are not.

Goran I really like and he was very effective on grass but he was a headcase.

Still far better than any of the non many slam winning grass specialists of the Federer era.

Todd Martin? SERIOUSLY?

It should have been obvious that I was purposely listing all the quarterfinal or beyond opponents. It does not mean I am implying every single one is the toughest ever. However Martin was Sampras weakest final 3 round opponent of those years, so we should compare him to the weakest final 3 round opponents of Federers first 3 Wimbledons- Grosjean, Schalken, Gonzalez, LOL! That is only the people Federer faced.

Edberg was a great player and even at nearly 6 years older than Pete was still a good player. Even with him though, he never won a slam after 1992 and never made a final after the AO 1993. So he kind of was finished by the start of Pete's reign at Wimbledon.

Edberg was certainly not finished at the time of Wimbledon 93. He was reigning U.S Open Champion and reigning Australian Open finalist. He was ranked #3 in the World at the time.

 

[Towser83]

This myth Becker was no longer a great player in the 90s is a joke. Becker won Australian Open (1991), ATP World Championships (1995), Australian Open (1996). He also played excellent tennis at 94 ATP World Championships (lost tough final to Pete), 96 ATP World Championships (lost one of all time great finals to Pete), 95 Wimbledon (beat #1 Agassi, then lost to Pete in final), 95 U.S Open (lost very tough semi to Agassi). Nobody would rather player Becker of the mid 90s at Wimbledon than Roddick or Hewitt.

Come on, 8 years after first winning Wimbledon, Becker was hardly in his prime. Was Spamras in his prime in 2001 (8 years on from his first wimbledon) whan he lost to Federer? Oh no of course not... Becker made 6 finals between 85 and 91, how many more chances to win did he realistically have? AO 1991 is before Sampras won Wimbledon or the time period we're talking about. AO 1996 was a good late win, but so what? Sampras won the US Open in 2002 yet a year earlier he was supposed to be a pathetic washed up man when Federer beat him. In 1993 Becker lost 1st round of the AO, 2nd round of the FO. 1994 he didn't play either AO or FO and lost first round of Queens, and the only top 80 player he beat at Wimbledon was Medvedev. 1995 again first round loss at AO and 3rd round loss at the FO, he was patchy and maybe doing better at Wimbledon because grass had less competition.

Agassi made the semis of Wimbledon 5 times. He won Wimbledon and lost to Sampras in another final. BS that he wasnt a great grass court player. He sure as heck was a better one than Roddick or Hewitt.

How did a baseliner ever win wimbledon on fast grass anyway? probably because not enough great grass players around apart from Sampras. Anyway you forget that the slowing of grass made Hewitt very effective, he made mincemeat out of a decent serve volley player like Henman and even beat Pete 2 out of 3 times at queens (the one he lost being a 3rd set tiebreak as a mere 18 year old) So is Hewitt that bad when even as a teenager he gave Sampras huge problems on grass? (fast grass as well)

BTW his game in theory should be better on grass than Nadals. his return of serve is in another league, his serve is comparable, and he has more compact strokes and is more agressive off the ground. Nadals only real advantage is he is a much better athlete. The fact Nadal has such a better record at Wimbledon is indicative of in part the slower grass today, but also the much weaker grass court field of today too.

Well you said it, the courts have slowed. On fast grass Andre was not a grass great, on today's grass he would be a bigger threat - why do you think the grass was slowed exactly? Because the total lack of competition and the possibility of one off results like huge serving Karlovic. They made it slower to allow more players a chance, and make sure that someone like Karlovic didn't serve his way to the title. Maybe weaker grass court field - but grass no longer plays like grass, so in terms of speed and bounce, more players are able to adapt than in the 90s - making it more competitive.

Still far better than any of the non many slam winning grass specialists of the Federer era.

yeah but Safin gets derided as an opponent of Federer's, Goran is the same, not mentally strong enough to triumph most of the time. He was really Pete's best rival though on grass. And he won ONE slam.

Edberg was certainly not finished at the time of Wimbledon 93. He was reigning U.S Open Champion and reigning Australian Open finalist. He was ranked #3 in the World at the time.

Yes but Pete never played him on grass. EVER. So you can say he was a grass GOAT if you like (of course he was legend of the game) but it only goes to show that Pete totally avoided one of the top grass players in all his wins. This means either - Edberg wasn't playing well enough to meet Sampras, or Pete was lucky, or Edberg wasn't really in Pete's era.

Yes he won the US Open in 1992, so what? Pete was reigning Wimbledon champ in 2001 and won the US Open the year after, yet when he lost to Federer he was washed up, not his best etc etc. He was also ranked a pretty good 6 in the world. Apparently sometimes being highly ranked, defending champ of a slam etc does not mean you are wonderful competition...at least when it suits you.

 

[Cup8489]

Come on, 8 years after first winning Wimbledon, Becker was hardly in his prime. Was Spamras in his prime in 2001 (8 years on from his first wimbledon) whan he lost to Federer? Oh no of course not... Becker made 6 finals between 85 and 91, how many more chances to win did he realistically have? AO 1991 is before Sampras won Wimbledon or the time period we're talking about. AO 1996 was a good late win, but so what? Sampras won the US Open in 2002 yet a year earlier he was supposed to be a pathetic washed up man when Federer beat him. In 1993 Becker lost 1st round of the AO, 2nd round of the FO. 1994 he didn't play either AO or FO and lost first round of Queens, and the only top 80 player he beat at Wimbledon was Medvedev. 1995 again first round loss at AO and 3rd round loss at the FO, he was patchy and maybe doing better at Wimbledon because grass had less competition.




How did a baseliner ever win wimbledon on fast grass anyway? probably because not enough great grass players around apart from Sampras. Anyway you forget that the slowing of grass made Hewitt very effective, he made mincemeat out of a decent serve volley player like Henman and even beat Pete 2 out of 3 times at queens (the one he lost being a 3rd set tiebreak as a mere 18 year old) So is Hewitt that bad when even as a teenager he gave Sampras huge problems on grass? (fast grass as well)



Well you said it, the courts have slowed. On fast grass Andre was not a grass great, on today's grass he would be a bigger threat - why do you think the grass was slowed exactly? Because the total lack of competition and the possibility of one off results like huge serving Karlovic. They made it slower to allow more players a chance, and make sure that someone like Karlovic didn't serve his way to the title. Maybe weaker grass court field - but grass no longer plays like grass, so in terms of speed and bounce, more players are able to adapt than in the 90s - making it more competitive.




yeah but Safin gets derided as an opponent of Federer's, Goran is the same, not mentally strong enough to triumph most of the time. He was really Pete's best rival though on grass. And he won ONE slam.




Yes but Pete never played him on grass. EVER. So you can say he was a grass GOAT if you like (of course he was legend of the game) but it only goes to show that Pete totally avoided one of the top grass players in all his wins. This means either - Edberg wasn't playing well enough to meet Sampras, or Pete was lucky, or Edberg wasn't really in Pete's era.

Yes he won the US Open in 1992, so what? Pete was reigning Wimbledon champ in 2001 and won the US Open the year after, yet when he lost to Federer he was washed up, not his best etc etc. He was also ranked a pretty good 6 in the world. Apparently sometimes being highly ranked, defending champ of a slam etc does not mean you are wonderful competition...at least when it suits you.

Yeah, you're a washed up old man who moves around the court using a walker and playing slice forehands! LOL. Welcome to NadalAgassi's circular reasoning.. You can't ever win an argument against him, because that would mean he knows what HE'S talking about, too. And since he doesn't, you can't win, or lose, LOL

 

[Towser83]

Yeah the circular logic is funny, a few highlights.

Todays grass favours baseliners...yet who rules the tennis world today? Baseliners. So you can argue that Pete was a better fast grass player but not that the competition is weaker when it has by NadalAgassi's own admission, been slowed down to give more players a chance (Nadal and Djokovic winning Wimbledon who I pressume NadalAgassi wouldn't give much chance in the 90s - hence more players can be competitive)

A player with a good ranking and defending a slam must be a great player at that time.... unless it's Sampras and he's losing to Federer.

Edberg was a top grasscourt rival for Sampras. But he never played him on grass a single time.

 

[Polaris]

Edberg was a top grasscourt rival for Sampras. But he never played him on grass a single time.

Ownage by facts. Good work. Unfortunately, NadalAgassi and his sockpuppets deal solely in opinions. Facts are secondary.

 

[TMF]

Don't forget Agassi, who was ranked #1 and #2 most of the time in 2003 and won the AO. But the guy is all washed up after that year just b/c he can't beat Federer onward.

 

[Towser83]

Don't forget Agassi, who was ranked #1 and #2 most of the time in 2003 and won the AO. But the guy is all washed up after that year just b/c he can't beat Federer onward.

yeah I guess his high ranking and ability to win a slam didn't mean much eh? No he was old and washed up. The old washed up guys in Sampras's day though, they were highly ranked and slam winners! Nice contradictions aren't they? :lol:

 

[Cup8489]

yeah I guess his high ranking and ability to win a slam didn't mean much eh? No he was old and washed up. The old washed up guys in Sampras's day though, they were highly ranked and slam winners! Nice contradictions aren't they? :lol:

SSH, you're making too much sense here! Don't you know the rules are to be as irrational as possible?

 

[Towser83]

SSH, you're making too much sense here! Don't you know the rules are to be as irrational as possible?

Ok, here goes... Sampras today would fail to win a single slam and would be owned even by Murray on every surface. He might be a decent doubles player..

Irrational enough? Are all tennis forums like this?, I came here after BBC 606 forum shut and that was a crazy place full of the craziest trolls.

 

[abmk]

This myth Becker was no longer a great player in the 90s is a joke. Becker won Australian Open (1991), ATP World Championships (1995), Australian Open (1996). He also played excellent tennis at 94 ATP World Championships (lost tough final to Pete), 96 ATP World Championships (lost one of all time great finals to Pete), 95 Wimbledon (beat #1 Agassi, then lost to Pete in final), 95 U.S Open (lost very tough semi to Agassi). Nobody would rather player Becker of the mid 90s at Wimbledon than Roddick or Hewitt.

didn't I answer this already !? Read post

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=6062922&postcount=151

again, slowly. maybe you might get it.

Agassi made the semis of Wimbledon 5 times. He won Wimbledon and lost to Sampras in another final. BS that he wasnt a great grass court player. He sure as heck was a better one than Roddick or Hewitt.

BTW his game in theory should be better on grass than Nadals. his return of serve is in another league, his serve is comparable, and he has more compact strokes and is more agressive off the ground. Nadals only real advantage is he is a much better athlete. The fact Nadal has such a better record at Wimbledon is indicative of in part the slower grass today, but also the much weaker grass court field of today too.

nadal is a better athlete, much tougher mentally . Not that much of a difference b/w agassi and roddick ( 2003-05 and 09 ) and hewitt ( 02,04-05 ) on grass.

Fine, but he was still a tougher opponent than 19 year old Nadal in the 2006 final, who had lost to no names in almost everyone of the few grass events he had ever played to that point (and should have lost in straight sets to Robert Kendrick at that years Wimbledon). As well as a tougher opponent than Grosjean who made the semis of Wimbledon of Federers first 2 wins. As well as a tougher opponent than a past his prime Philipoussis who Federer beat in the 2003 final. He isnt a great grass court player but he is a champion who knows how to get the job done in big matches, which many of the guys Federer played in late rounds at Wimbledon are not.

yeah, but still a lesser opponent on grass clearly when compared to roddick 2004 or 2009, hewitt 2002 or 2004-05 or nadal of 2007-08 etc etc ....roddick 2003, scud 2003 are debatable.

past his prime phillippoussis ? LOL, how exactly would you define his prime ?

scud was inconsistent, but when on a good run, he was dangerous and he was on such a run in 2003 wimbledon.

Edberg was certainly not finished at the time of Wimbledon 93. He was reigning U.S Open Champion and reigning Australian Open finalist. He was ranked #3 in the World at the time.

not sure why edberg is in the picture here. He didn't play sampras on grass. Oh and sampras lost both their slam meetings

 

[slice serve ace]

he was also playing well in 93, winning only 38% of his 2nd serve points on grass and DF 12 times ( only 13 aces )?

and again in 95, winning only 32% of his 2nd serve points on grass and DF 16 times ( only 17 aces )?


All the stats are from the ATP site btw.

just to warn you, ATP is not reliable source for 90s grand slam matches. often, if not everytime, aces and dfs are counted twice, thus resulting in wrong numbers. real numbers for becker are 45% in '93 and 40% in '95

 

[TMF]

just to warn you, ATP is not reliable source for 90s grand slam matches. often, if not everytime, aces and dfs are counted twice, thus resulting in wrong numbers. real numbers for becker are 45% in '93 and 40% in '95

Can you show us where you get your resources ?

 

[slice serve ace]

Can you show us where you get your resources ?

i make the stats for the matches that i have. if you hope to find it on internet somewhere, forget it

 

[abmk]

just to warn you, ATP is not reliable source for 90s grand slam matches. often, if not everytime, aces and dfs are counted twice, thus resulting in wrong numbers. real numbers for becker are 45% in '93 and 40% in '95

yeah, I had forgotten about that . Still you'd expect becker to have better numbers on grass if he were playing really well. 93 was somewhat close to his prime play, but 95, he was never was really in it after set 1.

The stich match in 93 and the pioline/agassi matches in 95 obviously had some effect ....by 97 of course he was almost past it.