donkus_the_3rd
Rookie
Does he move past Sampras for being the best grass court player ever?
If Djokovic wins 8 Wimbledons
- Thread starter donkus_the_3rd
- Start date
MeatTornado
Talk Tennis Guru
Yes.
But he'll still be tied with Murray.
But he'll still be tied with Murray.
donkus_the_3rd
Rookie
Really? I thought the only other candidate would be Federer, however Federer not being able to beat his biggest rivals on grass hurts him. That is why I have Sampras in 1st place, Djokovic in 2nd, then Federer at 3rd, but there is quite a big gap between Djokovic and Federer, so I didn't include Federer as I don't think he could surpass Sampras or Djokovic on grass.
Your thoughts on this?
MeatTornado
Talk Tennis Guru
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
/thread
D
Deleted member 744633
Guest
Tough to tell.
One played on fast grass where if you didn't S/V, you lost
The other plays on slow grass where if you S/V, you're toast
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
Though Fed did get away with serve-and-volleying in half of his service points in 2003 Wimbledon (which was still his best Wimbledon run imo). He’s certainly capable, but the tactic is hard to employ nowadays.
D
Deleted member 744633
Guest
Yes Machan. I won't blame them though. Look at how many 'greatest' matches we got with slow grass. It's precisely why they slowed it down.
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
Plenty of great matches in both periods. Easier to forget the old ones, though. I think it's fine that Wimbledon slowed down the courts since they were getting a little out of control in the 90's, but imo they took it too far.
Lleytonstation
Talk Tennis Guru
@deathstrike strikes again.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
Its the season for banned users to return...even pantera is posting here again.
D
Deleted member 748597
Guest
Andy Murray won an Olympic Gold on grass beating peak Djokovic and peak Federer. Educate yourself, OP.
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
2012 Federer is hardly peak, he was 31 years old at that OGM match. His peak was 2004-2007.
D
Deleted member 748597
Guest
I was joking.
D
Deleted member 768841
Guest
Again, can I have whatever you are smoking?
D
Deleted member 748597
Guest
He was also joking.
D
Deleted member 744633
Guest
They should have tried to find some middle ground.
125downthemiddle
Banned
I'm happy with Novak having 6 Wimbledons tbh. A real shame he didn't have a chance to defend it as he'd have been a big favorite this year (yes I know Fed almost/should have won last year) but hell have some more good chances.
I don't need him to have 7,8, or 9 really. I think he's the GOAT HC player so I'd like more HC slams, particularly USOs
. I believe Sampras and Federer having more grass slams is fine, but would be cool for Novak to break the tie with Borg.
I don't need him to have 7,8, or 9 really. I think he's the GOAT HC player so I'd like more HC slams, particularly USOs
. I believe Sampras and Federer having more grass slams is fine, but would be cool for Novak to break the tie with Borg.
Lleytonstation
Talk Tennis Guru
Stop it, give me hint?Its the season for banned users to return...even pantera is posting here again.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Actually he would move ahead. He would have 9 grass titles to Murray's 8. Andy has to keep winning on grass to prevent this happening.
MeatTornado
Talk Tennis Guru
If Andy doesn't keep playing then Novak can never improve his 0-2 H2H.Actually he would move ahead. He would have 9 grass titles to Murray's 8. Andy has to keep winning on grass to prevent this happening.
Checkmate
Come on, stop this "biggest rivals" nonsense. How often does someone come along who has to be taught that only losing to the best is of course BETTER than losing earlier or not playing at all at a certain age.
And just to remind you: At the age when Federer lost his FIRST Wimbledon match to Djokovic, Sampras was retired for 2 years. When Federer and Djokovic even met the first time at Wimbledon, Sampras was busy losing to George Bastl.
Sampras never played against anyone even close to the abilities of the Big 3 in their prime, and serve and volley almost safely wouldn’t work against any of them on a daily basis, no matter if fast or slow grass. It’s the racquets that matter much more.
And on topic: If Djokovic wins 8 Wimbledons he would be second behind Federer (because Federer has more additional finals and many more other grass titles). I admit that the 2020 thing is hard to judge, because Djokovic would be the clear favourite in this year’s Wimbledon. But tournaments not played cannot count as wins of course. If he reaches 9, then he clearly overtakes him.
And just to remind you: At the age when Federer lost his FIRST Wimbledon match to Djokovic, Sampras was retired for 2 years. When Federer and Djokovic even met the first time at Wimbledon, Sampras was busy losing to George Bastl.
Sampras never played against anyone even close to the abilities of the Big 3 in their prime, and serve and volley almost safely wouldn’t work against any of them on a daily basis, no matter if fast or slow grass. It’s the racquets that matter much more.
And on topic: If Djokovic wins 8 Wimbledons he would be second behind Federer (because Federer has more additional finals and many more other grass titles). I admit that the 2020 thing is hard to judge, because Djokovic would be the clear favourite in this year’s Wimbledon. But tournaments not played cannot count as wins of course. If he reaches 9, then he clearly overtakes him.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
But Sampras never beat Federer so how is he above him?
donkus_the_3rd
Rookie
I put Sampras above Federer because he beat his biggest rivals at Wimbledon, and I always felt that Federer got lucky in the 04 final, and got lucky in 07. Not saying that doesn't count, but Sampras had an aura of invincibility about him, it took a zoning Krajicek to beat him. But I could see how people would put Federer above Sampras and Djokovic on grass.
Sampras actually came out in retirement to beat Federer at MSG. It wasn't grass, and is beyond the scope of this discussion.
Last edited:
Fedforever
Hall of Fame
Murray's head-to-head with Djokovic on grass is 2-0 (we can count the OGM as a Wimbledon win too since it was played there). He is clearly superior as only head to head counts, apparently.
donkus_the_3rd
Rookie
No, because I take in to consideration the draw difficulty, and whether or not the player is in their prime. Murray got a pity slam, playing Raonic in the final, and managed to catch Djokovic before he took his grass game to the next level.
I think Murray is really good on grass, I think his level of play can match Djokovic's, however his consistency is lacking.
Fedforever
Hall of Fame
I'm afraid it's only head-to-head that counts. Of course it's a shame that all Federer's wins at Wimbledon don't count because Djokovic couldn't get to him in those years but that's what some of Novak's fans keep telling me so I've got to go with it.
But I am British so Murray being better than Dojoko at Wimbledon is a nice little compensation.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
You mean Ivanisevic and Henman?
Regarding that aura of invincibility - look how many sets Sampras lost at Wimbledon in 1993-2000 and compare it to Fed's 2003-2009 + 2012.
I'm done
donkus_the_3rd
Rookie
Each to their own opinion, can't say I agree with you, but atleast you're not flying off the handle if you don't agree with anyone.
donkus_the_3rd
Rookie
Sampras had tougher competition. The grass field had more depth to it during the 90's. This is for all to see.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
In the early 90s maybe.
Also, if you think that Ivanisevic/Henman/Krajicek/Agassi/old Becker on fast grass are tougher to beat than Nadal/Djokovic on slow grass then you need to reevaluate everything you know.
ForehandCross
G.O.A.T.
No please go ahead and tell me exactly how the competition was tougher.
Courier on Grass<Murray
Ivanisevic= Roddick
Becker (Once) <Djokovic(4 times)
Pioline(Really?)<Cilic
Agassi<Nadal
Poisoned Slice
Bionic Poster
Fedforever
Hall of Fame
It's trolling v trolling.
donkus_the_3rd
Rookie
guys, I said the grass field had more depth and dangerous floaters. Any match could have been a given, and I like you left Krajicek out, Krajicek that day quite possibly displayed the highest level of tennis. I do not completely disagree when you say Nadal and Djokovic were tougher, but in terms of depth, and dangerous grass players who could get hot, the 90's completely craps on any other era.
Ivanisevic is better on grass than Roddick
Like, the competition at Wimbledon was so bad that a clay courter was making finals, and even Ferrero was pushing Federer hard. Lol.
ForehandCross
G.O.A.T.
Federer too had such a situation. Roddick went Rosol mode in 2004. But unlike Sampras,with little help from rain, he got it done
donkus_the_3rd
Rookie
Let's get this clear, Rosol was serving at 130mph and hitting 85 mph forehands. Roddick was hitting 145mph serves and 105mph forehands, there are levels to this sport.
But, krajicek was on another level. He was hitting winners of Sampras' first serve, and his net play was ridiculous, hitting all sorts of baseline winners. Krajicek that day beats anyone on grass.
beard
Legend
2007? So predictable...
In 2008 Nadal made him 27 yo *******... Too bad Nadal haven't make him grandad the year before...
This story of Federer left hisboeak as soon as real competition emerged is so funny to read...
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
so you're basically saying that the competition was not better in the 90s than now with the exception of the average mug/journeyman being better than the average mug/journeyman today
donkus_the_3rd
Rookie
Depth = better, especially when you have a pillar of grasscourt tennis in Sampras.
2003-2010: There were three above decent grasscourters in Federer, Nadal and Roddick. Hewitt was a pretender. Berdych was knocking on the door of being a decent grasscourter.
socallefty
G.O.A.T.
The OP is definitely being provocative on purpose (or trolling) to not mention Federer in his original post. Federer and Sampras are unquestionably at the top of the discussion of grass-court champions with eight Wimbledon titles each and I would give the edge to Federer because he beat Sampras the only time they played (I don’t care about age) and also had to contend with Nadal, Djokovic and Murray to win his titles. Federer won with net play during his first couple of titles and adapted and won with baseline play in his other titles at Wimbledon - he gets the edge for being more versatile also. No one would say that Sampras will blow-out Federer if they played on 90s fast-grass since Federer is also a great server while no one would take Sampras over Federer on the slow grass of the 21st century if they had to duel mostly from the baseline especially with poly strings existing.
I think Djokovic could arguably claim to being the greatest grass-court player if he won 7 Wimbledon titles since he is 3-0 against the current all-time best Federer in Wimbledon finals already. So, he needs two more titles to lay a claim to being the best and he would clinch it if he won three more titles and got eight in total. The quality of opposition played by all these champions can be argued only in a subjective way and there is no way to really know if there was a big variance in level. I’m a believer that the quality of play and competition in all sports keeps improving as fitness, nutrition, equipment keeps improving and typically, more countries have the facilities and resources to produce champions as time goes on. You didn’t see a lot of top players outside of the US, Australia and Sweden before the last two decades in tennis and now you see them from a much larger number of countries.
I think Djokovic could arguably claim to being the greatest grass-court player if he won 7 Wimbledon titles since he is 3-0 against the current all-time best Federer in Wimbledon finals already. So, he needs two more titles to lay a claim to being the best and he would clinch it if he won three more titles and got eight in total. The quality of opposition played by all these champions can be argued only in a subjective way and there is no way to really know if there was a big variance in level. I’m a believer that the quality of play and competition in all sports keeps improving as fitness, nutrition, equipment keeps improving and typically, more countries have the facilities and resources to produce champions as time goes on. You didn’t see a lot of top players outside of the US, Australia and Sweden before the last two decades in tennis and now you see them from a much larger number of countries.
donkus_the_3rd
Rookie
Similar threads
