Novak's Projection on Grass against Roger?

Where do you see Novak's grass career measuring up with Federer?

  • He'll be Grass GOAT!

    Votes: 5 13.9%
  • He'll be viewed about even with Federer

    Votes: 4 11.1%
  • Not good enough

    Votes: 20 55.6%
  • SAMPRAS.

    Votes: 7 19.4%

  • Total voters
    36
Well, he has clearly surpassed Federer for me. 5 Wimbledon titles whilst embarrassing Federer three of those times and having to beat Nadal twice > Federer's 3 Wimbledon titles where he had to beat Nadal and Djokovic to win.

I could care less about the other 5 Wimbledon titles he racked up against utter scrubs and low-tier opposition. Stats matter, but not just simple stats (such as 8 Wimbledon titles > 5 Wimbledon titles), but also complex stats that factor deeper details. In this case, Djokovic's 5 Wimbledon titles > Federer's 8 Wimbledon titles for the reasons I mentioned.

But for now, I'll have to say Sampras has the greatest legacy at Wimbledon, despite it being very difficult to compare Djokovic and Sampras due to how different grass court was in each other's eras.
 
People call Sampras the GrassGoAT. And chunp Fed for losing four Finals.

But all the Fs Fed lost to Djok were at ages past when PETE retired. Hard to ding him for that.
If you're still playing, then clearly age isn't a problem and therefore can't be used as an excuse. If age is a problem, then Federer would be retired by now. The fact that he isn't, means age isn't a problem for him. So all his losses count equally, no matter what age those losses come at. You don't get a pass for losing, just because you're old or older than someone else who retired at the same age. If you want to get a pass, then you can only do that by retiring, period.
 

Rosstour

Hall of Fame
If you're still playing, then clearly age isn't a problem and therefore can't be used as an excuse. If age is a problem, then Federer would be retired by now. The fact that he isn't, means age isn't a problem for him. So all his losses count equally, no matter what age those losses come at. You don't get a pass for losing, just because you're old or older than someone else who retired at the same age. If you want to get a pass, then you can only do that by retiring, period.
Makes sense in theory, but not reality.
 

Third Serve

G.O.A.T.
If you're still playing, then clearly age isn't a problem and therefore can't be used as an excuse. If age is a problem, then Federer would be retired by now. The fact that he isn't, means age isn't a problem for him. So all his losses count equally, no matter what age those losses come at. You don't get a pass for losing, just because you're old or older than someone else who retired at the same age. If you want to get a pass, then you can only do that by retiring, period.
Sure there isn't any medium between "age isn't a problem at all" and "age is a big enough problem to retire"? There's a whole lot of middle ground between the two.
 
Sure there isn't any medium between "age isn't a problem at all" and "age is a big enough problem to retire"? There's a whole lot of middle ground between the two.
Doesn't matter. If you choose to play, then irrespective of your age, you'll be held accountable for your performance, win or lose. But if you choose to retire due to old age, then you won't be blamed for retiring, thus avoiding any more losses and preventing yourself from winning anything more.

This 'he too old doe' is a lousy excuse by fanboys and fangirls to take the responsibility away.
 

FRV4

Semi-Pro
I don't get why people bring up record in finals other than the wins. Yeah, I get it, no one is playing for second place, but they sure as hell ain't playing for 3rd and 4th. All that matters is how many titles you win and how big a legend you are due to the many other factors. But losing in the finals is not detrimental to a legacy other than the fact you lost the opportunity for a title.
 
P

PETEhammer

Guest
Roger had better competition by a considerable margin.
He played Roddick 3 times, Philippousis, and claycourter Nadal, who came into his own in 2007 on grass where Fed beat him and well done. He lost to him then following year however.

And no, Pete's competition was actually much tougher when you look at finals and the whole field than Rodger's.
 

Sunny014

Hall of Fame
Otha, after watching a nearly 34 year old man straight set a 25 year old in the AO final, I hope no lavadekkabaal ever brings up the age argument in Federer's defense while discussing his performance against Djokovic in Wimbledon finals. OTHA!

@Sunny014 @PETEhammer
Are you insane?
Comparing a young Djokovic to a worthless Medevdev who is maybe even worse than Hewitt in terms of big final mindset ?

Please don't embarrass yourself with these logics, compare clowns with clowns and formidable 25 yr olds with formidable 25 yr olds.
 

Sunny014

Hall of Fame
He played Roddick 3 times, Philippousis, and claycourter Nadal, who came into his own in 2007 on grass where Fed beat him and well done. He lost to him then following year however.

And no, Pete's competition was actually much tougher when you look at finals and the whole field than Rodger's.
Clay courter Nadal would have straight setted your petros on Grass (new one).
 

Sunny014

Hall of Fame
After the events of the last few years, I'm firmly convinced that Djokovic is a better slow grass player than Federer.

Yes @Sunny014, you told me never to bring up 3-0 again because Federer was older and I obliged. But no more! Not after I saw what Djokovic did against an opponent 9 years younger in the AO final!
Sir,
Your r either biased to the core or your skills of deduction are very poor.
I would like to believe that it is the former but I fear it is the latter
 
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
Are you insane?
Comparing a young Djokovic to a worthless Medevdev who is maybe even worse than Hewitt in terms of big final mindset ?

Please don't embarrass yourself with these logics, compare clowns with clowns and formidable 25 yr olds with formidable 25 yr olds.
Wonderful post Machan, agreed (y)
 
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
Well, he has clearly surpassed Federer for me. 5 Wimbledon titles whilst embarrassing Federer three of those times and having to beat Nadal twice > Federer's 3 Wimbledon titles where he had to beat Nadal and Djokovic to win.

I could care less about the other 5 Wimbledon titles he racked up against utter scrubs and low-tier opposition. Stats matter, but not just simple stats (such as 8 Wimbledon titles > 5 Wimbledon titles), but also complex stats that factor deeper details. In this case, Djokovic's 5 Wimbledon titles > Federer's 8 Wimbledon titles for the reasons I mentioned.

But for now, I'll have to say Sampras has the greatest legacy at Wimbledon, despite it being very difficult to compare Djokovic and Sampras due to how different grass court was in each other's eras.
Wonderful post Machan (y)
 

RelentlessAttack

Hall of Fame
Are you insane?
Comparing a young Djokovic to a worthless Medevdev who is maybe even worse than Hewitt in terms of big final mindset ?

Please don't embarrass yourself with these logics, compare clowns with clowns and formidable 25 yr olds with formidable 25 yr olds.
Hewitt’s mindset wasn’t the problem, he didn’t have any weapons to hurt Roger.

But yeah there’s no comparison
 
Top