John McEnroe provides updated version of rankings: Why Roger Federer Still Greatest of All Time

[thrust]

I recall you calling Rosewall #2 previously, perhaps I imagined it or misunderstood. Disagreements about Rosewall can get unusually tense

Agree about it being hard to compare eras, it's impossible to do it objectively.

Being an avid Rosewall fan, having seen him play several times at the USO, I have thought he was underrated by people like McEnroe and present day sports writers. His best tennis was played before the open era, when Tennis became very popular in the US. He was a top 2-5 player for a few years after turning 33 but not quite good enough to be #1 after 1968. You are correct that I have ranked him at #2, but having read so many posts about him lately, I feel that perhaps I have ranked with my heart instead of mind. For whatever reason, he was considered the #1 or joint #1 60-64

Currently Pete is better than Nadal at:
- AO
- Wimby
- USO
- WTF
- Weeks No. 1
- Year No. 1

He's better than Djokovic at:
- Wimby
- USO
- Weeks No. 1
- Year No. 1

...

TRUE! Unfortunately, facts don't matter much here. Also, Pete won his Wimbledon's in an era when there were more grass court specialists then there have been since 2000.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

the delusions .......Sampras was a great all-court player. (could play at the baseline or at the net)
Just didn't have enough patience on clay for Bo5.

Nadal on indoor HC is only slightly better than sampras was on clay.

Yes, but indoor HC Nadal is vastly superior to Clay Sampras over 2000 meters on Wednesdays.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

On fast surfaces, how is Sampras not better than Nadal and Djokovic?

I meant overall. Of course Sampras was better on grass and fast HC.

Dat Serve...

 

[Phoenix1983]

Sampras remains the second greatest pure Open Era player.

 

[Limpinhitter]

I meant overall. Of course Sampras was better on grass and fast HC.

Dat Serve...

If Sampras is better on fast courts, which were the majority of courts in Sampras' prime relative to current surfaces, then perhaps he was better than Nadal and Djokovic "overall," on the surfaces he played on. Personally, I would pick Sampras to win over either of them on all surfaces except for the clay and the slowest hard courts, like those at Key Biscayne.

 

[NatF]

Being an avid Rosewall fan, having seen him play several times at the USO, I have thought he was underrated by people like McEnroe and present day sports writers. His best tennis was played before the open era, when Tennis became very popular in the US. He was a top 2-5 player for a few years after turning 33 but not quite good enough to be #1 after 1968. You are correct that I have ranked him at #2, but having read so many posts about him lately, I feel that perhaps I have ranked with my heart instead of mind. For whatever reason, he was considered the #1 or joint #1 60-64

I don't know if he was considered the joint of #1 player in 1960-1964, he is considered that by some now. I draw a distinction between what conflicting sources at the time said and what we now believe in hindsight. Robert Geist who's opinion is represented in many of those Wikipedia articles was not a contemporary historian for example, neither is McCauley. Kramer names Gonzalez as #1 in 1960, in fact in both 1960 and 1961 Gonzalez won the tour for the World Championship (something which could be considered synonymous with #1). McCauley ranks Gonzalez as #1 in both years.

L'Équipe had Rosewall as #1 in both years, presumably because of Rosewall's European results - they likely favour champions victorious at the French Pro. Likewise the British Press considered Laver #1 in 1964 because he had won Wembley (the premier tournament on the calendar).

This is not me saying Rosewall definitely wasn't #1 in such and such year, just that claiming there is a consensus between the different sources is untrue. There is plenty of room to argue which years Rosewall was #1 in.

 

[N01E]

"Perhaps?" Who would you possibly put above him???

Roddick, Karlovic... There's plenty to choose from

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

If Sampras is better on fast courts, which were the majority of courts in Sampras' prime relative to current surfaces, then perhaps he was better than Nadal and Djokovic "overall," on the surfaces he played on. Personally, I would pick Sampras to win over either of them on all surfaces except for the clay and the slowest hard courts, like those at Key Biscayne.

Of course Sampras was better at fast courts than both Nadal and Djokovic. That wasn't the point. The point was that Nadal was much better on hardcourts or grass than Sampras was on clay. Sampras was a very unbalanced player, who was great on fast courts and very weak on clay. It makes sense, since his serve was his greatest weapon by far.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Of course Sampras was better at fast courts than both Nadal and Djokovic. That wasn't the point. The point was that Nadal was much better on hardcourts or grass than Sampras was on clay. Sampras was a very unbalanced player, who was great on fast courts and very weak on clay. It makes sense, since his serve was his greatest weapon by far.

I don't agree. Just because Sampras didn't win a FO doesn't mean that he was "very weak" on clay. Further, although Sampras' serve was one of the greatest of all time, so was his forehand and overall net play. His backhand wasn't as great, but, an excellent backhand nonetheless. I consider Sampras' game to be much more balanced than Nadal's or Djokovic's.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

I don't agree. Just because Sampras didn't win a FO doesn't mean that he was "very weak" on clay. Further, although Sampras' serve was one of the greatest of all time, so was his forehand and overall net play. His backhand wasn't as great, but, an excellent backhand nonetheless. I consider Sampras' game to be much more balanced than Nadal's or Djokovic's.

What is Sampras's greatest achievement on clay? Anything close to Nadal's achievements on HC or on grass?

 

[Limpinhitter]

What is Sampras's greatest achievement on clay? Anything close to Nadal's achievements on HC or on grass?

That is a red herring my friend. Borg is the only player on the men's side whose achievements on clay are close to Nadal's. There is a lot of space between (arguably) the greatest clay court player of all time and "very weak," on clay. In my view, Sampras is very good on clay, but, not great because clay does not reward his approach to the game the way faster courts do.

PS: You also overlook the fact that the surfaces in Nadal's and Djokovic's primes are much more homogenized than they were in Sampras' time. I've written fairly extensively on Sampras' style of play and the choice he had to make (that winning Wimbledon was his priority), given the racquet and string technology and court surfaces that prevailed during his career. Neither Nadal nor Djokovic had to make that choice because the equipment and court surfaces that have prevailed during their careers reward the same approach to the game on all surfaces.

 

[AngryBirds]

Being an avid Rosewall fan, having seen him play several times at the USO, I have thought he was underrated by people like McEnroe and present day sports writers. His best tennis was played before the open era, when Tennis became very popular in the US. He was a top 2-5 player for a few years after turning 33 but not quite good enough to be #1 after 1968. You are correct that I have ranked him at #2, but having read so many posts about him lately, I feel that perhaps I have ranked with my heart instead of mind. For whatever reason, he was considered the #1 or joint #1 60-64

TRUE! Unfortunately, facts don't matter much here. Also, Pete won his Wimbledon's in an era when there were more grass court specialists then there have been since 2000.

Those were the times when people played real serve volley tennis on grass. Nowadays, you can win a title by grinding like a clay courter(Djoko, Nadal, Murray).

 

[6august]

It's true that grass/hard used to be quicker.

However I completely disagree with those who say Djoker, Nadal and Murray can only win on slow grass / hard. If Agassi and Hewitt managed to win on fast grass/hard then I think Djo-Nad-Mur are definitely capable of winning there.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

That is a red herring my friend. Borg is the only player on the men's side whose achievements on clay are close to Nadal's. There is a lot of space between (arguably) the greatest clay court player of all time and "very weak," on clay. In my view, Sampras is very good on clay, but, not great because clay does not reward his approach to the game the way faster courts do.

PS: You also overlook the fact that the surfaces in Nadal's and Djokovic's primes are much more homogenized than they were in Sampras' time. I've written fairly extensively on Sampras' style of play and the choice he had to make (that winning Wimbledon was his priority), given the racquet and string technology and court surfaces that prevailed during his career. Neither Nadal nor Djokovic had to make that choice because the equipment and court surfaces that have prevailed during their careers reward the same approach to the game on all surfaces.

Even with the surface homogeneization, there are slow courts and fast courts, aren't there? Why hasn't Federer beaten Nadal on RG ever? Why has Nadal won 9 slams in RG and only 5 elsewhere? Nadal has problems not with fast courts, but with low bouncing courts, first of all.

Going by achievements, Nadal has achieved infinitely more on Wimbledon than Sampras ever achieved at RG. This is an undeniable fact, which can't be overlooked due to the "homogeneization of surfaces". Clay and grass are still clay and grass. Some other things (racquet technology) might have had even more effect on the way tennis is played nowadays than surface changes anyway.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

Double post.

 

[SinjinCooper]

Even with the surface homogeneization, there are slow courts and fast courts, aren't there?

Lol. No. That's kind of why it's called "homogenization." There are slow courts and slower courts. Clay is still different primarily because the footwork is radically unique.

Fast courts at tournaments of any substance saw their last hurrah in 2001. Medium courts disappeared about a year later.

Sampras dominated true fast courts and got to the semis in an era of specialists on true slow courts. We can't definitively say how Nadal would perform at a slam on true fast courts, because he's never played in one in his life. But I'd be shocked if he got out of the second round with his game. You don't even have time to set up those kinds of strokes on slick grass against people packing graphite power. Borg's no-powered wooden racquet era was the last time until the Great Slowdown that baseliners could compete. Wood was the great equalizer, allowing baseline play on fast Wimbledon grass, and S&V success on RG clay.

A big windup, massive topspin, graphite era claycourter who thrived on slow HC too like Muster never got out of the first round at Wimbledon in his career. I doubt Nadal would fare any better without a drastic retooling of his game.

 

[mike danny]

Lol. No. That's kind of why it's called "homogenization." There are slow courts and slower courts. Clay is still different primarily because the footwork is radically unique.

Fast courts at tournaments of any substance saw their last hurrah in 2001. Medium courts disappeared about a year later.

Sampras dominated true fast courts and got to the semis in an era of specialists on true slow courts. We can't definitively say how Nadal would perform at a slam on true fast courts, because he's never played in one in his life. But I'd be shocked if he got out of the second round with his game. You don't even have time to set up those kinds of strokes on slick grass against people packing graphite power. Borg's no-powered wooden racquet era was the last time until the Great Slowdown that baseliners could compete. Wood was the great equalizer, allowing baseline play on fast Wimbledon grass, and S&V success on RG clay.

A big windup, massive topspin, graphite era claycourter who thrived on slow HC too like Muster never got out of the first round at Wimbledon in his career. I doubt Nadal would fare any better without a drastic retooling of his game.

Not all the courts were equally slow after 2001. Wimb got slower, but the USO stayed about the same until later years. 2004-2009 USO (and some of them probably even after 2009) was still pretty fast.

Even Wimb wasn't that slow all the time. Fed served and volleyed quite often to win the title in 2003.

 

[WarrenMP]

I gotta agree with Mac. And I'm a die hard Agassi fan. Federer is the goat. He just didn't match up well against Nadal. What's amazing and I think many take it for granted...is that even in the last few years Federer has been right there...aaaalllmost winning slams. Until his recent knee injury he has been almost super human. If not his record then his artistic mastery of the racket makes him the goat. Even if Djockavic breaks his record, or Nadal, they will never have the poetic touch and breathless strokes that define the goat...Roger Federer.

Well written. I like them all because they help make the game of tennis great. Hands down, Federer is the greatest of all time. Even if someone else comes along, it won't be until 10 or more years. Tennis is a sport of one man shows. Federer era of playing crossed many great talents. From Sampras/Agassi, Hewitt, Roddick, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

Lol. No. That's kind of why it's called "homogenization." There are slow courts and slower courts. Clay is still different primarily because the footwork is radically unique.

Fast courts at tournaments of any substance saw their last hurrah in 2001. Medium courts disappeared about a year later.

Sampras dominated true fast courts and got to the semis in an era of specialists on true slow courts. We can't definitively say how Nadal would perform at a slam on true fast courts, because he's never played in one in his life. But I'd be shocked if he got out of the second round with his game. You don't even have time to set up those kinds of strokes on slick grass against people packing graphite power. Borg's no-powered wooden racquet era was the last time until the Great Slowdown that baseliners could compete. Wood was the great equalizer, allowing baseline play on fast Wimbledon grass, and S&V success on RG clay.

A big windup, massive topspin, graphite era claycourter who thrived on slow HC too like Muster never got out of the first round at Wimbledon in his career. I doubt Nadal would fare any better without a drastic retooling of his game.

What is the speed difference between specific courts? You speak like you have specific data to prove this. Or are you just going by your eyeballs?

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

Double post.

 

[Service Ace]

It means Nadal plays better when he goes against Fed. Better - comparative -- means he plays comparatively better vs FEd, than he plays vs others. That's because against Fed he gets an obvious extra motivation and push and (Edit: Didn't mean PED) TUE or whatever that makes his play better... That doesn't mean he is better against everyone in his whole career, which again is obvious and apparent looking at his losses against players like Rosol and Pouille...

Fed plays best against most, second best vs Nadal
Nadal plays good against many, bad against few, comparatively better only vs very few, Fed in this case.

For a whole career, that means Fed is better "overall".

You can't confuse "overall" with "H2H". They both have different significance and meaning.

So concise, so true. And yet Nadal truthers will still push the narrative that Nadal is the GOAT. Smh

 

[bitcoinoperated]

So JMac's personal opinion rankings are actually a thing now?

 

[AngryBirds]

It's true that grass/hard used to be quicker.

However I completely disagree with those who say Djoker, Nadal and Murray can only win on slow grass / hard. If Agassi and Hewitt managed to win on fast grass/hard then I think Djo-Nad-Mur are definitely capable of winning there.

Hewitt didn't win on fast grass. Courts were slowed down in 2002 and look what happened, Hewitt won. Agassi was an aggressive baseliner and he won before Pete started dominating Wimbledon.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Even with the surface homogeneization, there are slow courts and fast courts, aren't there? Why hasn't Federer beaten Nadal on RG ever? Why has Nadal won 9 slams in RG and only 5 elsewhere? Nadal has problems not with fast courts, but with low bouncing courts, first of all.

Going by achievements, Nadal has achieved infinitely more on Wimbledon than Sampras ever achieved at RG. This is an undeniable fact, which can't be overlooked due to the "homogeneization of surfaces". Clay and grass are still clay and grass. Some other things (racquet technology) might have had even more effect on the way tennis is played nowadays than surface changes anyway.

Yes, the grass at Wimbledon is still pretty fast. But, that does not complete the analysis. The differences in court surface speed are significantly smaller than in Sampras' career. The racquets and string are significantly different, too. Those differences have eliminated genuine grass court players because juniors are brought up to compete on all surfaces, not just grass, especially now that there are only a few grass events left. Sampras played in a transitional era. In his time, players had to make a choice to be back court players who succeeded best on clay, or big game players who succeeded best on faster courts. Sampras chose the latter. Although, in my view, Sampras ground game was one of the best of all time, Sampras' approach to the game, aggressive, first strike tennis, was not rewarded on clay which rewards patience and steadiness and punishes highly aggressive, high risk, play. It's not that Sampras didn't have the shotmaking ability to succeed on clay. It's that his tactical approach to the game was best suited to fast courts.

Nadal and Djokovic have enjoyed success on grass only because there are no genuine grass court players like Sampras for them to compete against. Federer is not a genuine grass court player. If Nadal and Djokovic's primes were in the 90's or earlier, I don't think they would hold any grass court titles because I don't think their games would hold up well against great grass court players, just like great grass court players of the past games wouldn't hold up well today on clay.

 

[punterlad]

Roger is the best and Nadal is the 2nd best cause he matches up better with the best? Can't understand his guy's logic.

He can't be serious.

Again, top 8 Open-era: Federer - Sampras - Djokovic - Nadal - Borg - Lendl - Agassi - Connors.

I think the world values McEnroes factual comments more than your mere baseless opinion. How many majors have u won btw?

 

[punterlad]

http://www.gamenguide.com/articles/...-roger-federer-still-greatest-of-all-time.htm

Tennis legend John McEnroe shared his thought on the legacy of Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal, as arguably two best tennis players enter the end game of their respective Hall of Fame careers.

In a radio interview with WFAN host Marc Malusis on Tuesday in New York City via Tennis Today, McEnroe provided his updated version of tennis All-Time rankings.

For McEnroe, Federer is still the greatest tennis player of all time largely because of the body of work he had accomplished in his career. McEnroe pointed out the Swiss Master's longevity and consistency over the span of his pro career makes him the ultimate tennis player.

As far Nadal is concerned, McEnroe believes nobody in the history of tennis who matches up well with Federer. He thinks Nadal is the waterloo to Federer's greatness, although injuries and inconsistencies the last 2-3 years certainly hurt his claim as the G.O.AT.

"Federer overall, consistency-wise, is the best player ever," McEnroe told WFAN host Marc Malusis in a radio interview on Tuesday in New York City. "If you put Nadal, who is to me, the other guy. Those two if they played one-on-one and both guys were playing their best, I would say Nadal matches up better with Federer.

Knowing that Federer and Nadal may have at least 2 years left in their careers, McEnroe considers Andy Murray and Novak Djokovic as the top-2 players in the world right now. He added that Djokovic's accomplishment the last 4 years pushed him to top-5 all time. However, like Murray, the American predicts Djokovic to have 2 good years left in him before he hits the wall.

"There's a void that's about to occur because of what's happened with (Roger) Federer and (Rafael) Nadal," McEnroe told Malusis. "I mean, they're at the end, right? You can't imagine them going on more than a year or two. (Novak) Djokovic (and Andy) Murray are the two best, but they're not getting younger. I know 29 sounds young, but they're going to have another couple years, you anticipate."

It sure why this is newsworthy. Whole world who knows anything about tennis be it on atp side or WTA side and other sports people acknowledge federer and nadal as the two greatest tennis players of all time.

The interesting bit was placing Djokovic merely top 5. That is a pretty damning put down of Djokovic who surely at worse is top 4 just behind Sampras.

You can draw your own inference but mine is either McEnroe and other ex pros judge players off their achievements at Wimbledon, French open and us open more than at Australian open or McEnroe believes Djokovic only became a serial winner once nadal and federer declined.

Either way Djokovic won't like that article.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

Yes, the grass at Wimbledon is still pretty fast. But, that does not complete the analysis. The differences in court surface speed are significantly smaller than in Sampras' career. The racquets and string are significantly different, too. Those differences have eliminated genuine grass court players because juniors are brought up to compete on all surfaces, not just grass, especially now that there are only a few grass events left. Sampras played in a transitional era. In his time, players had to make a choice to be back court players who succeeded best on clay, or big game players who succeeded best on faster courts. Sampras chose the latter. Although, in my view, Sampras ground game was one of the best of all time, Sampras' approach to the game, aggressive, first strike tennis, was not rewarded on clay which rewards patience and steadiness and punishes highly aggressive, high risk, play. It's not that Sampras didn't have the shotmaking ability to succeed on clay. It's that his tactical approach to the game was best suited to fast courts.

Nadal and Djokovic have enjoyed success on grass only because there are no genuine grass court players like Sampras for them to compete against. Federer is not a genuine grass court player. If Nadal and Djokovic's primes were in the 90's or earlier, I don't think they would hold any grass court titles because I don't think their games would hold up well against great grass court players, just like great grass court players of the past games wouldn't hold up well today on clay.

But Federer beat Sampras in Wimbledon quite decisively playing S/V, didn't he?

 

[Limpinhitter]

But Federer beat Sampras in Wimbledon quite decisively playing S/V, didn't he?

No. First, Fed beat Sampras 7-6, 5-7, 6-4, 6-7, 7-5 in a very close 5 set match. Sampras had break points at 4 all in the 5th set after which he would have served for the match if he had broken. Further, Sampras was both past his prime and played a substandard match, in my view, whereas Federer played one of the best grass court matches of his career, especially his serving and returns, playing a mix of back court and net play. Fed then lost to Henman in next round in 4 sets. Second, that was one match. It doesn't prove that Fed was a better grass court player than Sampras any more than it proves that Henman was a greater grass court player than Sampras.

 

[metsman]

No. First, Fed beat Sampras 7-6, 5-7, 6-4, 6-7, 7-5 in a very close 5 set match. Sampras had break points at 4 all in the 5th set after which he would have served for the match if he had broken. Further, Sampras was both past his prime and played a substandard match, in my view, whereas Federer played one of the best grass court matches of his career, especially his serving and returns, playing a mix of back court and net play. Fed then lost to Henman in next round in 4 sets. Second, that was one match. It doesn't prove that Fed was a better grass court player than Sampras any more than it proves that Henman was a greater grass court player than Sampras.

All aspects of Federer's game were clearly better in 03 compared to 01. Sampras at least had his prime/peak serve in that match. Federer played well but there's at least 10-15 grass court matches where he has played better. Both fed and Sampras were about an equal distance from a prime level on grass.

 

[Limpinhitter]

All aspects of Federer's game were clearly better in 03 compared to 01. Sampras at least had his prime/peak serve in that match. Federer played well but there's at least 10-15 grass court matches where he has played better. Both fed and Sampras were about an equal distance from a prime level on grass.

I have not seen Federer serve or return better as in that match. He also attacked the net much more frequently than he later would. They may have been at equal distances from their primes temporally, but, in my view, in terms of skills on grass, Federer was much closer to his best in that match.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

No. First, Fed beat Sampras 7-6, 5-7, 6-4, 6-7, 7-5 in a very close 5 set match. Sampras had break points at 4 all in the 5th set after which he would have served for the match if he had broken. Further, Sampras was both past his prime and played a substandard match, in my view, whereas Federer played one of the best grass court matches of his career, especially his serving and returns, playing a mix of back court and net play. Fed then lost to Henman in next round in 4 sets. Second, that was one match. It doesn't prove that Fed was a better grass court player than Sampras any more than it proves that Henman was a greater grass court player than Sampras.

But the point is that Fed COULD play S/V. Fed is not a one-trick pony. He could adapt his game, unlike other players. That's why nobody considers Sampras the GOAT, and Fed is considered to be the GOAT by a very large number of experts.

 

[TMF]

I have not seen Federer serve or return better as in that match. He also attacked the net much more frequently than he later would. They may have been at equal distances from their primes temporally, but, in my view, in terms of skills on grass, Federer was much closer to his best in that match.

Disagree. Defending champion Sampras at 29 is closer to his prime than a 19 years old Federer in that match.

 

[KINGROGER]

I have not seen Federer serve or return better as in that match. He also attacked the net much more frequently than he later would. They may have been at equal distances from their primes temporally, but, in my view, in terms of skills on grass, Federer was much closer to his best in that match.

Fed nearly won Wimbledon in 2014 on slow grass playing lots of S&V and net approaches. Heck, in 03 he S&V on most first serves. Fed definitely has/had the serve/game/net play to win on fast grass. Halle is lightning fast compared to Wimbledon and he has dominated that too.

 

[metsman]

I have not seen Federer serve or return better as in that match. He also attacked the net much more frequently than he later would. They may have been at equal distances from their primes temporally, but, in my view, in terms of skills on grass, Federer was much closer to his best in that match.

I think you would reconsider that if you looked at his play in 03 Halle and Wimbledon, particularly Halle when he served and volleyed on first and seconds (at Wimby it was mostly just on firsts). His serving and volleying was very strong at Halle, easily the best I've ever seen it, and definitely stronger than in 2001 as he was quicker to net and his serve was bigger and volleys more controlled. And while his return was great against Sampras, it was still clearly better at his peak especially in 03/04 where he was eating up big servers like it was nothing. He served very well against Sampras, close to a peak level, but his serve gained speed as he developed physically and his second serve was less attackable at his peak.

 

[Limpinhitter]

But the point is that Fed COULD play S/V. Fed is not a one-trick pony. He could adapt his game, unlike other players. That's why nobody considers Sampras the GOAT, and Fed is considered to be the GOAT by a very large number of experts.

He could, but, not at the level of the great grass court players like Sampras. And, BTW, I consider Sampras to be a genuine GOAT candidate along with Federer, Laver, Gonzalez and Borg.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Fed nearly won Wimbledon in 2014 on slow grass playing lots of S&V and net approaches. Heck, in 03 he S&V on most first serves. Fed definitely has/had the serve/game/net play to win on fast grass. Halle is lightning fast compared to Wimbledon and he has dominated that too.

Fed has been one of the best grass court players in an era with a complete absence of genuine grass court players. In my view, he would not have a winning record on grass against the great grass court players.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Federer detractors: The meme that will never die.

No modern player who can easily be compared with Federer comes out ahead of him by any serious metric. End of.
Even among historical players it's pretty much limited to Laver.

At this point I really wonder what the point of the debate is. The consensus isn't going to change.

 

[KINGROGER]

Fed would beat the likes of Henman and Ivansevic on fast grass. Which grass specialists? Pre prime Fed beat post prime but defending champ Sampras on his fast grass playing S&V.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Fed would beat the likes of Henman and Ivansevic on fast grass. Which grass specialists? Pre prime Fed beat post prime but defending champ Sampras on his fast grass playing S&V.

I think you would reconsider that if you looked at his play in 03 Halle and Wimbledon, particularly Halle when he served and volleyed on first and seconds (at Wimby it was mostly just on firsts). His serving and volleying was very strong at Halle, easily the best I've ever seen it, and definitely stronger than in 2001 as he was quicker to net and his serve was bigger and volleys more controlled. And while his return was great against Sampras, it was still clearly better at his peak especially in 03/04 where he was eating up big servers like it was nothing. He served very well against Sampras, close to a peak level, but his serve gained speed as he developed physically and his second serve was less attackable at his peak.

Ultimately, in my view, peak Sampras was the greater grass/fast court player than peak Federer, and would have a winning record against him on fast surfaces. So would Laver and Gonzalez.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Federer detractors: The meme that will never die.

No modern player who can easily be compared with Federer comes out ahead of him by any serious metric. End of.
Even among historical players it's pretty much limited to Laver.

At this point I really wonder what the point of the debate is. The consensus isn't going to change.

In my view, peak Kramer, Gonzalez, Hoad, Laver, McEnroe and possibly Edberg and Becker would all have winning records against Fed on grass.

 

[Dilettante]

Federer as a beneficiary of a very weak era shouldn't be at #1. It pains me to say this as a Federer fan but this is the truth. Other than that it's a good list...

Fear The Weak Era.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

In my view, peak Kramer, Gonzalez, Hoad, Laver, McEnroe and possibly Edberg and Becker would all have winning records against Fed on grass.

On the old fast grass, quite possibly, but that would be just as unfair as making them play him on the modern grass.
It's too hard to compare that kind of thing. Fed would have had to have grown up on fast grass for that to be a fair comparison I think.
So all we can do is compare titles and stats and the like. Head to head comparisons aren't a good metric even within a single era IMO - let alone across eras.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Double post

 

[VladimirJ]

Fed might still be GOAT, but Djokovic is clearly BOAT

 

[SinjinCooper]

Fed would beat the likes of Henman and Ivansevic on fast grass. Which grass specialists? Pre prime Fed beat post prime but defending champ Sampras on his fast grass playing S&V.

Only one data point, but after Federer took out Sampras at still-fast Wimbledon, Henman took him out. Can't make too much of one data point, but certainly can't make the case that it's proof of Federer's dominance over S&V specialists on fast grass.

 

[SinjinCooper]

No modern player who can easily be compared with Federer comes out ahead of him by any serious metric. End of.
Even among historical players it's pretty much limited to Laver.

Fed has the compiler's stats sewn up for a while. But he wasn't nearly as dominant over the field across the span of his slam-winning years as say, Sampras or Borg, e.g. Both guys had at least double the amount of slams as their nearest competitiors during their winning years. Fed can't say the same.

That's why I consider them a top tier of the open era, rather than trying to rank one against another. Fed has the raw numbers, Borg has the greatest dominance (and couldn't very well have the numbers in a three-slam era), Pete's in between, against the most difficult set of circumstances.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

He could, but, not at the level of the great grass court players like Sampras. And, BTW, I consider Sampras to be a genuine GOAT candidate along with Federer, Laver, Gonzalez and Borg.

Yes, of course you do. Whereas Nadal (who is far more versatile and played in the era of the actual GOAT) is not.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

Only one data point, but after Federer took out Sampras at still-fast Wimbledon, Henman took him out. Can't make too much of one data point, but certainly can't make the case that it's proof of Federer's dominance over S&V specialists on fast grass.

Henman is probably one of the biggest underperformers of all time.

 

[Gizo]

^^ I actually think that Henman might have over-achieved at Wimbledon. He was basically a serve-volleyer without a strong serve. En-route to his Wimbledon semi-finals and quarter-finals, he had a lot of 5 set struggles and tense 4 set matches in earlier rounds against opponents that in theory shouldn't have caused him so many problems on grass. That was largely because he wasn't able to cruise through as many of his service games compared to his other title rivals.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

That is a red herring my friend. Borg is the only player on the men's side whose achievements on clay are close to Nadal's. There is a lot of space between (arguably) the greatest clay court player of all time and "very weak," on clay. In my view, Sampras is very good on clay, but, not great because clay does not reward his approach to the game the way faster courts do.

You are absolutely correct. Sampras was without a doubt one of the 30 or 40 best players on clay of his time. Like many others fast court players like Rafter, Rosset, Stich, Pioline, Becker, Edberg, Krajicek, Sampras managed to reach, against all odd, one FO semi-final.