Question for Sampras/Borg and other grass fans regarding the Big 3 at Wimbledon

[FrontHeadlock]

Here is an interesting question.

Let's say for sake of argument that both Djoker and Federer end up being considered "greater" grass court players than Sampras, probably because they end up with both more W titles AND finals than Sampras.

I just interestingly noticed that Nadal has now made his 8th W SF, the same as Sampras. Let's again assume that Nadal beats Kyrgios and then loses to Djokovic in the final.

We would now have a situation where Dr. Rafael Nadal lost each and every SF/F at Wimbledon to players who are ranked *higher* than Sampras on the grass GOAT list. In fact, he would have 2 titles, but will have lost 4 finals to Fed/Djoker, and also the 2018 SF to Djoker which was the de facto final.

From an argument perspective, that feels like it's dangerously close to saying that Dr. Nadal is near Pete's level on grass, and certainly near or better than Borg's level. And yet even as a Nadal fan and a Sampras hater I find the idea to be patently absurd.

How do we deal with that?

We've already given Djoker loads of credit on clay for losing to Nadal so many times, with many putting him 3rd on clay/at RG behind only Nadal and Borg.

Could one realistically argue that Nadal is the 3rd or 4th best player EVER on grass? How do you penalize him against players ranked lower than Fed/Djoker on grass for so many losses to the grass co-GOATs?

 

[Whisper]

Opinions are subjective. Another opinion might be the big 3 would win no Wimbledons in earlier eras.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Could one realistically argue that Nadal is the 3rd or 4th best player EVER on grass? How do you penalize him against players ranked lower than Fed/Djoker on grass for so many losses to the grass co-GOATs?

Even if we follow the same line of argument of people who say Djokovic is No.3 on clay behind only Nadal and Borg, due to the fact that many of his losses were against Nadal (something I do not agree with btw, I have at least Kuerten and Lendl ahead of Novak), there is no way we can ever rank Nadal ahead of Borg on grass. If there was a 5 time FO winner nobody apart from delusional fanboys would put Djokovic ahead of him either.

On top, I cannot see how even with the weirdest mental gymnastics we can put Nadal ahead of Becker on grass. Boris has one more title and one more additional final, and his losses against GOATING Pete and Stich and a very strong Edberg are not much worse than Rafa’s against Fed and Djoko. This does not even account for the fact that the there was way more depth on grass during the times of Borg/Becker/Mac etc.

 

[Russeljones]

Here is an interesting question.

Let's say for sake of argument that both Djoker and Federer end up being considered "greater" grass court players than Sampras, probably because they end up with both more W titles AND finals than Sampras.

I just interestingly noticed that Nadal has now made his 8th W SF, the same as Sampras. Let's again assume that Nadal beats Kyrgios and then loses to Djokovic in the final.

We would now have a situation where Dr. Rafael Nadal lost each and every SF/F at Wimbledon to players who are ranked *higher* than Sampras on the grass GOAT list. In fact, he would have 2 titles, but will have lost 4 finals to Fed/Djoker, and also the 2018 SF to Djoker which was the de facto final.

From an argument perspective, that feels like it's dangerously close to saying that Dr. Nadal is near Pete's level on grass, and certainly near or better than Borg's level. And yet even as a Nadal fan and a Sampras hater I find the idea to be patently absurd.

How do we deal with that?

We've already given Djoker loads of credit on clay for losing to Nadal so many times, with many putting him 3rd on clay/at RG behind only Nadal and Borg.

Could one realistically argue that Nadal is the 3rd or 4th best player EVER on grass? How do you penalize him against players ranked lower than Fed/Djoker on grass for so many losses to the grass co-GOATs?

My feeling is you haven't a clue.

 

[FrontHeadlock]

Even if we follow the same line of argument of people who say Djokovic is No.3 on clay behind only Nadal and Borg, due to the fact that many of his losses were against Nadal (something I do not agree with btw, I have at least Kuerten and Lendl ahead of Novak), there is no way we can ever rank Nadal ahead of Borg on grass. If there was a 5 time FO winner nobody apart from delusional fanboys would put Djokovic ahead of him either.

On top, I cannot see how even with the weirdest mental gymnastics we can put Nadal ahead of Becker on grass. Boris has one more title and one more additional final, and his losses against GOATING Pete and Stich and a very strong Edberg are not much worse than Rafa’s against Fed and Djoko. This does not even account for the fact that the there was way more depth on grass during the times of Borg/Becker/Mac etc.

Look, I agree with this. But by extension doesn't that likewise present problems for calling Federer and Djokovic co-GOATs on grass (again, assuming Djoker hits 8 Wimbledon titles)? Why should 8 titles automatically be greater than 7 titles if the competition was far weaker? And then at that point we're evaluating all sorts of contexts.

As for Becker, why can't you put Nadal above him? His first title was honestly pretty weak (he beat Leconte, Jarryd and Curren to win), and I think we can all agree that as good as Edberg and Stich were they probably weren't as good as Federer/Djokovic.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

As for Becker, why can't you put Nadal above him? His first title was honestly pretty weak (he beat Leconte, Jarryd and Curren to win), and I think we can all agree that as good as Edberg and Stich were they probably weren't as good as Federer/Djokovic.

First of all he has an additional title and final and this logic about “having lost so much against GOAT candidates so let us assume hypothetical titles” is not really cogent to me. Even if there were two grass GOATs one may well also argue that the field on grass (and also on clay) apart from the GOAT candidates was well weaker than in the 90s with far fewer specialists.

Regarding Edberg and Stich we again run into this comparison of level vs name. Of course Stich is nowhere near Djokovic’s and Fed’s achievements on grass but that does not mean that every single one of his performances was weaker than every single one of Fedovic’s. Stich was a player with a very high peak level (no other than Pistol said in his book that Stich was the one he feared most and Courier went on record saying that if everyone was playing at his best Stich would come out the winner) and the 91 Wimbly final was arguably his best match ever. Stich in 91 was definitely a tougher opponent than Novak in 2018 or Fed in 2019.

 

[FrontHeadlock]

Regarding Edberg and Stich we again run into this comparison of level vs name. Of course Stich is nowhere near Djokovic’s and Fed’s achievements on grass but that does not mean that every single one of his performances was weaker than every single one of Fedovic’s. Stich was a player with a very high peak level (no other than Pistol said in his book that Stich was the one he feared most and Courier went on record saying that if everyone was playing at his best Stich would come out the winner) and the 91 Wimbly final was arguably his best match ever. Stich in 91 was definitely a tougher opponent than Novak in 2018 or Fed in 2019.

Perhaps, but what about Fed in 2006-2008, or Novak in 2011?

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Perhaps, but what about Fed in 2006-2008, or Novak in 2011?

Tough to say, at least Fed’s very best on grass would still be better than Stich’s (however also difficult to assess due to the different grass they played on), but then again Becker also lost three times against Peak Sampras with the 95 and 97 version definitely being close to the very best of Pete. Had he beaten Pete in 93 he would have played Courier in the final whom he generally owned and on his best and Jim’s worst surface to boot. No matter how we spin it, even with the imho ridiculous assumption of giving Nadal extra points to his resume for playing alongside two grass GOATs, I have a very hard time to ever put him ahead of Becker.

 

[socallefty]

Just stop comparing players across era - you have to suspend disbelief and not think of technology changes, training/diet/medicine changes to do so. Not worth the mental gymnastics.

Pete was best of his era on Wimbledon grass, Nadal is a distant third of his era on grass.