So now that Pete and Roger have 7 Wimbledons..

Gizo

Legend
The only thing that Sampras has in his favour over Federer in the grass court debate is that he won his 7 Wimbledon titles in 8 years from 1993-2000, while Federer won his 7 in 10 years from 2003-2012. On the face of it 7 titles in 8 years is better than 7 in 10 years as it shows slightly greater dominance.

However I believe that this is more than offset by Federer winning 5 Wimbledon titles in a row from 2003-2007 and then reaching a 6th straight final in 2008 which he narrowly lost.

Consecutive title streaks at slams are very important in my opinion, and when Borg won 5 Wimbledon titles in a row from 1976-1980 and reached a 6th straight final in 1981, it was considered as one of the greatest achievements in tennis history. Federer matching that was equally incredible.

Given that Federer shares the total Wimbledon title record with Sampras, and shares the consecutive Wimbledon title record with Borg, is it clear that he is the greatest on grass in my opinion.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
pete's route to wimby win in 2000


Round Opponent Ranking Score
R128 Jiri Vanek (CZE) 80 W 6-4, 6-4, 6-2 Stats
R64 Karol Kucera (SVK) 44 W 7-6(9), 3-6, 6-3, 6-4 Stats
R32 Justin Gimelstob (USA) 99 W 2-6, 6-4, 6-2, 6-2 Stats
R16 Jonas Bjorkman (SWE) 78 W 6-3, 6-2, 7-5 Stats
Q Jan-Michael Gambill (USA) 56 W 6-4, 6-7(4), 6-4, 6-4 Stats
S Vladimir Voltchkov (BLR) 237 W 7-6(4), 6-2, 6-4 Stats
W Patrick Rafter (AUS) 21 W 6-7(10), 7-6(5), 6-4, 6-2 Stats

although pete never had to face a top ten player, his win at wimby that year was still legitimate, much like any of nadal's finals.

With this kind of easy draw, give it to Fed he would dominate even more than in today's generation.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
2 different grass surfaces, Pete was better in "that grass", Roger is better on "this grass"

Not that I'm disagreeing with you but I believe Roger can thrive in the 90s grass but not sure about Sampras on "this grass". Roger can adapt to the condition in the 90s because he once played attacking tennis before, and I have no doubt that he can be a great s/v player. Asking Sampras to play out of his comfort zone and be successful is still in question, he's a pure s/v player and we don't know how he fare being a baseline oriented style because the high bounce grass rewards for players with superb baseline game, great return, longer rally.
 

helloworld

Hall of Fame
Pete in his prime would have no problem beating Federer. He was just too good for anyone on grass. Sadly, his body and mental declined rapidly after 2000. The serve-and-volley Sampras that we saw in 2000-2002 was nowhere near the Prime all-court game Sampras in the mid 90s.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Pete in his prime would have no problem beating Federer. He was just too good for anyone on grass. Sadly, his body and mental declined rapidly after 2000. The serve-and-volley Sampras that we saw in 2000-2002 was nowhere near the Prime all-court game Sampras in the mid 90s.

Federer vs Sampras:oops:

Both player was playing attacking tennis and Fed edged him. Now could you imagine they battle from the baseline on the current grass. You don't want to know. You don't.
 

helloworld

Hall of Fame
Federer vs Sampras:oops:

Both player was playing attacking tennis and Fed edged him. Now could you imagine they battle from the baseline on the current grass. You don't want to know. You don't.

Did you just bring up Sampras who was almost unranked and won 0 tournament for the whole year? Is that Prime Sampras in your mind?? :confused:
 

Devilito

Legend
Federer vs Sampras:oops:

Both player was playing attacking tennis and Fed edged him. Now could you imagine they battle from the baseline on the current grass. You don't want to know. You don't.

In your deluded mind;

Benneteau = a complete nobody = 5 sets with Roger on grass.
Tsonga + Berdych = Nobodies in the grand scheme of tennis history = defeated Roger on current grass
Petros = GOAT Candidate and 7 time Wimbledon Champion = totally blown out couldn’t hang with Roger

Your lack of tennis logic and reason = You don't want to know. You don't.
 

merlinpinpin

Hall of Fame
In your deluded mind;

Benneteau = a complete nobody = 5 sets with Roger on grass.
Tsonga + Berdych = Nobodies in the grand scheme of tennis history = defeated Roger on current grass
Petros = GOAT Candidate and 7 time Wimbledon Champion = totally blown out couldn’t hang with Roger

Your lack of tennis logic and reason = You don't want to know. You don't.

Taunts all over the place, guys? Careful, or someone will drop the name Bastl in the conversation... ;)
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Did you just bring up Sampras who was almost unranked and won 0 tournament for the whole year? Is that Prime Sampras in your mind?? :confused:

Sampras's ranking was based on every surfaces he played in a 12-month span. He's the best player on grass so ranking doesn't reflect his ability on grass. The fact that he's a 4 time defending champion and was chasing Borg's 5 straight W say he was the best, and the favorite to win again that year. Meanwhile Fed was a nobody, huge underdog and no one expected him to win. While I agree that Pete wasn't in his prime, but neither was a 19 year old Federer with no experience.
 

merlinpinpin

Hall of Fame
pete's route to wimby win in 2000


Round Opponent Ranking Score
R128 Jiri Vanek (CZE) 80 W 6-4, 6-4, 6-2 Stats
R64 Karol Kucera (SVK) 44 W 7-6(9), 3-6, 6-3, 6-4 Stats
R32 Justin Gimelstob (USA) 99 W 2-6, 6-4, 6-2, 6-2 Stats
R16 Jonas Bjorkman (SWE) 78 W 6-3, 6-2, 7-5 Stats
Q Jan-Michael Gambill (USA) 56 W 6-4, 6-7(4), 6-4, 6-4 Stats
S Vladimir Voltchkov (BLR) 237 W 7-6(4), 6-2, 6-4 Stats
W Patrick Rafter (AUS) 21 W 6-7(10), 7-6(5), 6-4, 6-2 Stats

although pete never had to face a top ten player, his win at wimby that year was still legitimate, much like any of nadal's finals.

Translating that epic run to the rankings as they were this year the week Wimbledon started, that would be:

R128 Thomasz Bellucci (BRA)
R64 Jarkko Nieminen (RUS)
R32 Ivan Dodig (CRO)
R16 Malek Jaziri (TUN)
Q Yen-Hsun Lu (TPE)
S Facundo Arguello (ARG)
F Alexandr Dolgopolov (UKR)

Can you imagine the uproar on TT should Federer win his eighth Wimbledon after blitzing through such a draw? :mrgreen:
 

heftylefty

Hall of Fame
Translating that epic run to the rankings as they were this year the week Wimbledon started, that would be:

R128 Thomasz Bellucci (BRA)
R64 Jarkko Nieminen (RUS)
R32 Ivan Dodig (CRO)
R16 Malek Jaziri (TUN)
Q Yen-Hsun Lu (TPE)
S Facundo Arguello (ARG)
F Alexandr Dolgopolov (UKR)

Can you imagine the uproar on TT should Federer win his eighth Wimbledon after blitzing through such a draw? :mrgreen:

Quoted because some people can't handle the TRUTH.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
In your deluded mind;

Benneteau = a complete nobody = 5 sets with Roger on grass.
Tsonga + Berdych = Nobodies in the grand scheme of tennis history = defeated Roger on current grass
Petros = GOAT Candidate and 7 time Wimbledon Champion = totally blown out couldn’t hang with Roger

Your lack of tennis logic and reason = You don't want to know. You don't.

But at the same age, Sampras in 2002 lost to Bastl(ranked #145).:oops:

Federer win/loss is 68-7(better than Sampras at the same age) at Wimbledon but all you do is list a few names above to prove that he can hang with Roger from the baseline with today's grass then you must be out of your mind.
 

ruerooo

Legend
Roger is the King of Wimbledon.

Look at the sportswriters drooling over him in the press, generating torrents of ink -- it's not just about the skills and percentages, it's about the mystique.
 

RF20Lennon

Legend
Did you just bring up Sampras who was almost unranked and won 0 tournament for the whole year? Is that Prime Sampras in your mind?? :confused:

He was the DEFENDING CHAMPION and plus this was the time when Sampras was past his prime and Federer was pre-prime so that evens them out kind of and its not like Fed got it easy it was a very tough and close 5 set much so it showed that Sampras fought but Federer beat him with a S &V game
 

pmerk34

Legend
Wait, so the current, slow grass isn't green clay anymore? When did this happen?

Oh right, just remembered that Federer won this year.

Anyway, I give the edge to Sampras atm, given he's won all his titles on the old grass, which was more upset-inducing.

It was never green clay. It's much quicker than the French Open which is like playing in mud.
 

db379

Hall of Fame
Not that I'm disagreeing with you but I believe Roger can thrive in the 90s grass but not sure about Sampras on "this grass". Roger can adapt to the condition in the 90s because he once played attacking tennis before, and I have no doubt that he can be a great s/v player. Asking Sampras to play out of his comfort zone and be successful is still in question, he's a pure s/v player and we don't know how he fare being a baseline oriented style because the high bounce grass rewards for players with superb baseline game, great return, longer rally.

The answer to this one is easy: just look at Pete's record on clay and compare it to Fed's. Fed has shown a much better adaptability to different court conditions and has been a major force on ALL surfaces. Pete has not, and he has mostly struggled on slow courts.
 

fed_rulz

Hall of Fame
Petetards are funny, but pathetic. On one hand, they diss Federer's accomplishments claiming that the surfaces are all similar and play like clay (evidence -- clay court king's run at wimbledon); OTOH, they have no hesitation in claiming that grass is grass and Sampras will rule.

Which one is it morons, you can't have it both ways??
 

paulorenzo

Hall of Fame
Translating that epic run to the rankings as they were this year the week Wimbledon started, that would be:

R128 Thomasz Bellucci (BRA)
R64 Jarkko Nieminen (RUS)
R32 Ivan Dodig (CRO)
R16 Malek Jaziri (TUN)
Q Yen-Hsun Lu (TPE)
S Facundo Arguello (ARG)
F Alexandr Dolgopolov (UKR)

Can you imagine the uproar on TT should Federer win his eighth Wimbledon after blitzing through such a draw? :mrgreen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_lrrq_opng&feature=player_detailpage#t=78s
 

Gangsta

Rookie
On this thread, all grass courts are grass courts and Roger would have beaten Sampras on all grass courts.

On another thread, Nadal should thank his stars that today's grass courts are nothing but green clay.

Nice. :lol:
 

fed_rulz

Hall of Fame
On this thread, all grass courts are grass courts and Roger would have beaten Sampras on all grass courts.

On another thread, Nadal should thank his stars that today's grass courts are nothing but green clay.

Nice. :lol:

I dont' think anyone but Petetards claim that. baby Federer beat Sampras (4-time defending champion, served out of his mind -- 69% 1st serves in, 26 aces) in 5 sets on OLD grass. that's the basis for claiming that Federer would've done well on slick grass as well (factoring his other fast court results as well)
 
What the heck. I had to sign up because I can't believe all the crap being spouted on here about Pete. First of all, how the hell was Pete in his prime when he played Roger Federer back in 2001? The guy was past it. If anything, he was past his prime in 99 and only really took Wimbledon and the US open seriously in his latter years. On 90's grass Pete would have *****slapped Federer all across the court and made him cry many more times then Nadal the clay court specialist ever did. His 2nd serve plus his net play was just made for 90's grass. The grass nowadays between him and Federer it would be closer, but people underestimate how good an athlete Pete was and how qucik he was. Roger stuggles big time against Nadal on grass, hows he going to get by Sampras? BTW Pete's prime was round about 94-95 where he destroyed a 27 year old Boris Becker. It's funny how all the Federer fans say Pete was in his prime at 30 yet Federer isn't. Guess who beat Roger in the next round. Tim Henman. I'm guessing he's also a better player then Sampras also yes.
 

Sid_Vicious

G.O.A.T.
What the heck. I had to sign up because I can't believe all the crap being spouted on here about Pete. First of all, how the hell was Pete in his prime when he played Roger Federer back in 2001? The guy was past it. If anything, he was past his prime in 99 and only really took Wimbledon and the US open seriously in his latter years. On 90's grass Pete would have *****slapped Federer all across the court and made him cry many more times then Nadal the clay court specialist ever did. His 2nd serve plus his net play was just made for 90's grass. The grass nowadays between him and Federer it would be closer, but people underestimate how good an athlete Pete was and how qucik he was. Roger stuggles big time against Nadal on grass, hows he going to get by Sampras? BTW Pete's prime was round about 94-95 where he destroyed a 27 year old Boris Becker. It's funny how all the Federer fans say Pete was in his prime at 30 yet Federer isn't. Guess who beat Roger in the next round. Tim Henman. I'm guessing he's also a better player then Sampras also yes.

Aha! Backup has arrived for 90's clay, if you guys know what I mean. :)
 
Right so was Sampras in his prime at age 29 nearly 30 in 2001? If Federer was so good why did he lose to Tim Henman in the next round? Because back then Federer wasn't in his prime but neither was Sampras. Also it tells how more unpredicatable grass was back then to now. A big serving nobody could blast someone of the court. It doesn't happen now, notice how the SF finals are very predictable? With the exception of Nadal the top 4 ranked men made the SF. That didn't happen in the 90's. I mean back to 2001 and a wildcard won the the thing ( Ivaniservic). That's why Sampras 7 Wimbledons are more significant then Federer's.
 
Right so was Sampras in his prime at age 29 nearly 30 in 2001?.

Show us who claims such a thing. I know, that the majority here thinks, that both Sampras and Federer were not in their primes, when they played each other.

If Federer was so good why did he lose to Tim Henman in the next round?.

What does "so good" means? He was better than Sampras in that tournament, and that is all that matters.

Because back then Federer wasn't in his prime but neither was Sampras. Also it tells how more unpredicatable grass was back then to now. A big serving nobody could blast someone of the court.

Well, Sampras was a big serving somebody. So, he himself was not having too many problems with the big servers. Besides, the match between Rosol and Nadal showed, that a big serving nobody can certainly trouble the top dogs on today's grass as well.

It doesn't happen now, notice how the SF finals are very predictable? With the exception of Nadal the top 4 ranked men made the SF. That didn't happen in the 90's. I mean back to 2001 and a wildcard won the the thing ( Ivaniservic). That's why Sampras 7 Wimbledons are more significant then Federer's.

No. The last sentence is your conclusion, but it is not a fact, as you want to put it. You say, that because of the upsets potential the wins on the fast grass were more valuable, to which I raise you the points, that having to go through deeper field and more highly seeded players, to win your titles could be considered equally as strong (if not stronger) argument for the opposite point of view.
 

drakulie

Talk Tennis Guru
By the numbers, Fed is greater. 8 finals is better than 7, and 6 finals in a row.

Overall, on the older, faster grass,,, Pete would have the edge, on the newer, slower grass, it goes to fed.

That said, I believe Fed would have more success on the older grass, than Pete would have on the newer grass.
 
By the numbers, Fed is greater. 8 finals is better than 7, and 6 finals in a row.

Overall, on the older, faster grass,,, Pete would have the edge, on the newer, slower grass, it goes to fed.

That said, I believe Fed would have more success on the older grass, than Pete would have on the newer grass.

Agreed on all counts.
 
Last edited:

wilkinru

Professional
We only have one match to really compare the two.

Neither were in the best shape. I'll tell you this much tho - Fed showed Pete some new tricks that match. Shots he has never seen before, passing shots, around the net shots. Pete saw the next generation, a newer, faster, stronger, more complete version of himself.

Simply put, Prime Fed would put Pete's head on the pavement and stomp him out.

It wouldn't be close. It would be routine even. Fed's movement and return ability along with the flick backhand pass...game over.

I've watched that one match many times, mostly to enjoy silly johnny mac talk about who the best player in the world is playing. He just is confused on who :)

This was on old grass too at a time when Pete was a god. I watched it live having no idea who this Fed guy was. Best match ever. Changed the men's game forever.
 

scineram

Professional
Translating that epic run to the rankings as they were this year the week Wimbledon started, that would be:

R128 Thomasz Bellucci (BRA)
R64 Jarkko Nieminen (RUS)
R32 Ivan Dodig (CRO)
R16 Malek Jaziri (TUN)
Q Yen-Hsun Lu (TPE)
S Facundo Arguello (ARG)
F Alexandr Dolgopolov (UKR)

Can you imagine the uproar on TT should Federer win his eighth Wimbledon after blitzing through such a draw? :mrgreen:
Man, what an epic finding!
 

War Safin!

Professional
Right so was Sampras in his prime at age 29 nearly 30 in 2001? If Federer was so good why did he lose to Tim Henman in the next round? Because back then Federer wasn't in his prime but neither was Sampras. Also it tells how more unpredicatable grass was back then to now. A big serving nobody could blast someone of the court. It doesn't happen now, notice how the SF finals are very predictable? With the exception of Nadal the top 4 ranked men made the SF. That didn't happen in the 90's. I mean back to 2001 and a wildcard won the the thing ( Ivaniservic). That's why Sampras 7 Wimbledons are more significant then Federer's.
This was the point I was trying to make earlier.
Fans of Federer seem to totally forget this when they bring up the 'Roger-already-beat-Pete-on-grass-get-over-it': Henners smoked his ass the next match.

Not only that, he got blown away by Mario Ancic in the 1st-round the next year. It took Federer 2 years before he started to get comfortable on 'crap-rye-grass' and 4 years to be pretty unstoppable on it.

And let's face it: NO-ONE likes the 'crap-rye-grass' Wimbledon have been using since 2002 or their wouldnt be so many threads about it on Tennis Warehouse, year-after-year.
 

BeHappy

Hall of Fame
Sampras is a better grass court player because

1) the competition in Wimbledon finals he faced was so much greater. Becker back to his best in 1995, Agassi back to his best in 1999, (left handed) Ivanisevic twice, Rafter, and Courier on a slow grass court in 1993 and a shoulder injury that meant he couldn't serve over 110mph.

Federer on the other has had three quality final opponents, Philippoussis in 2003, Nadal in 2008 and aggressive Roddick in 2004.
Pusher Roddick in 2005/2009 and clay court specialist Nadal in 2006/2007 were a joke.

look at Nadal's route to the final in 2006, and look at his failure to do anything off clay until 2008.

In 2007 Nadal was being destroyed by Youzhny in the Quarter final till Youzhny hurt his back so seriously that to this day Youzhny has never recovered and Nadal won. And then in the semi final Dokovic was up a set and a break and had to retire so Nadal had no right to be there. Is that what you call a strong opponent for Federer in the final? A Nadal who was still a clay court specialist?


2) Because he won 7 in 8 years, that's domination.

3)He never got to play on indoor grass and if he had he almost certainly would have won past 28 years of age as federer has.

4)Federer was incredibly lucky to play in an age where all his rivals were crippled by injury:

Safin went from being a huge rival in late 2004 and early 2005 (2004 YEC 18-20 tie break in final set, and AO semi final) to having his knee destroyed by injury. Would have been a dark horse on the slow grass and even washed up Safin got to the semi final a few years ago.

Hewitt hasn't had more than 6 months injury free since 2005.

Roddick started pushing in 2005.

Nalbandian's nephew got crushed in an elevator shaft and since then his weight has ballooned up and down.

Ferrero got the chicken pox and fractured a rib, came back and his forehand had disappeared. Would have been a dark horse on the slow grass and even washed up Ferrero got to the semi final a few years ago.

Tommy Haas lost his best years to injury. Would have been a dark horse on the slow grass and even washed up Haas got to the semi final a few years ago.

The only big (potential) rival Sampras had that had his career ended by injury was David Wheaton.
 
Last edited:
Show us who claims such a thing. I know, that the majority here thinks, that both Sampras and Federer were not in their primes, when they played each other.

Look back further in the thread.

What does "so good" means? He was better than Sampras in that tournament, and that is all that matters.

But he wasn't better then Henman. It was a one off match in which Sampras was past it and perhaps underestimated his opponent.

Well, Sampras was a big serving somebody. So, he himself was not having too many problems with the big servers. Besides, the match between Rosol and Nadal showed, that a big serving nobody can certainly trouble the top dogs on today's grass as well.

No, it showed that he was consistently good on grass whne back then upsets were more common. Using Nadal as an example doesn't work, he can't really be compared to great grass court players of the past.


No. The last sentence is your conclusion, but it is not a fact, as you want to put it. You say, that because of the upsets potential the wins on the fast grass were more valuable, to which I raise you the points, that having to go through deeper field and more highly seeded players, to win your titles could be considered equally as strong (if not stronger) argument for the opposite point of view.

Compare the finalists and SF for Federer to Sampras. It goes in Sampras's favour.
 

10is

Professional
We only have one match to really compare the two.

Neither were in the best shape. I'll tell you this much tho - Fed showed Pete some new tricks that match. Shots he has never seen before, passing shots, around the net shots. Pete saw the next generation, a newer, faster, stronger, more complete version of himself.

Simply put, Prime Fed would put Pete's head on the pavement and stomp him out.

It wouldn't be close. It would be routine even. Fed's movement and return ability along with the flick backhand pass...game over.

I've watched that one match many times, mostly to enjoy silly johnny mac talk about who the best player in the world is playing. He just is confused on who :)

This was on old grass too at a time when Pete was a god. I watched it live having no idea who this Fed guy was. Best match ever. Changed the men's game forever.

My sentiments EXACTLY! Bravo!
 
Look back further in the thread.

I have read the thread. The majority of the posters share the view, that both players were not in their prime. If there is someone, who doesn't share this view he is both wrong and an exception.

But, you should provide the quotes, not tell me to look anywhere. I have looked and the opinions of all reasonalble posters do not fit your assumption.

But he wasn't better then Henman. It was a one off match in which Sampras was past it and perhaps underestimated his opponent.

Sampras served very well in that match. He played his vintage S&V, so I do not know what kind of underestimation you are talking about. If for you "underestimate" = "not his best", I have already stated, that any reasonable poster would agree, that neither Federer nor Sampras played the best tennis, they are capable of. For any other meaning of "underestimate" I think that you are mistaken.

BTW. Teh comparison is between Federer and Sampras, and not between their respective fields. Because if it is between their respective fields Federer is ahead of Sampras.


No, it showed that he was consistently good on grass whne back then upsets were more common. Using Nadal as an example doesn't work, he can't really be compared to great grass court players of the past.

Again. Mixing surface conditions is pointless. Why is Nadal (and why only Nadal? Nadal doesn't constitute the top 10 nowadays) not a good measure for tough competition on grass? Because he will supposedly not be good on the old fast and slick grass? But he played on the slow and medium high bouncing grass, on which played also Federer and everybody else. Nah, tough competition and deeper field mean more than upset potential. Actually, if the upset potential was that big, we should have had more upsets, and Sampras would not have been so dominant at SW19. Upset potential in Sampras's time on grass meant, that the players, whose game was naturally suitable for grass, had the opportunity to upset higher ranked players, that had the games for other surfaces. Sampras's game was perfectly suited for grass, so the upset potential, that you are talking about was simply not there for him.


Compare the finalists and SF for Federer to Sampras. It goes in Sampras's favour.

Yes, compare them, and tell me, why do you think that. Please do!
 
I have read the thread. The majority of the posters share the view, that both players were not in their prime. If there is someone, who doesn't share this view he is both wrong and an exception.

But, you should provide the quotes, not tell me to look anywhere. I have looked and the opinions of all reasonalble posters do not fit your assumption.

It's there somewhere. And for you to ention reasonable posters you ust have come across it.





Again. Mixing surface conditions is pointless. Why is Nadal (and why only Nadal? Nadal doesn't constitute the top 10 nowadays) not a good measure for tough competition on grass? Because he will supposedly not be good on the old fast and slick grass? But he played on the slow and medium high bouncing grass, on which played also Federer and everybody else. Nah, tough competition and deeper field mean more than upset potential. Actually, if the upset potential was that big, we should have had more upsets, and Sampras would not have been so dominant at SW19. Upset potential in Sampras's time on grass meant, that the players, whose game was naturally suitable for grass, had the opportunity to upset higher ranked players, that had the games for other surfaces. Sampras's game was perfectly suited for grass, so the upset potential, that you are talking about was simply not there for him.

How the hell is the competition on grass these days deeper then it was back in the 90's. You have the same four players making the SF at almost every slam. Nadal get'sput our early but before that makes 5 Wimbledon finals in a row ( 2009 he didn't compete).


Yes, compare them, and tell me, why do you think that. Please do!

Only Nadal 2008 and Murray can be compared to the level of Becker, Ivanisevich( twice) and Rafter. Sorry but those guys were just better on grass and I'd have Agassi 99 ahead of Nadal in 06/07. Roddick wasn't on the same level even back in 04.

Simple fact is, Roddick is the only genuine grass court player Federer has faced in finals.
 
It's there somewhere. And for you to ention reasonable posters you ust have come across it.

The bolded part doesn't cut it, mon ami. If you claim, that something (and in written form no less) was said, you should be able to point at it.

Anyway, you chimed in and with such an attitude, as though everybody here were insisting, that Sampras was in his prime, when he played Federer. In fact, it is exactly the opposite, and if there are any other opinions, they are very few and usually from extreme fans (extreme even for this boards).

How the hell is the competition on grass these days deeper then it was back in the 90's. You have the same four players making the SF at almost every slam. Nadal get'sput our early but before that makes 5 Wimbledon finals in a row ( 2009 he didn't compete).

You said it yourself. "At almost every slam", which means, that the conditions are such, that it is virtually a lock, that every top 10 player has almost an equal chance to go deep in every Major (with very few exceptions like Roddick in the years, when he was in the top 10 and couldn't be bothered to show up and play decent tennis at RG). Which means that with the available skillset every seeded player have a chance to go as deep as his ranking suggests and give hard time to his opponents with a higher ranking. The homogenization of the surfaces makes sure, that the field is deeper, because everybody can play on ,say , today's grass as opposed to the 90'ies, where the grass specialists were reigning supreme at SW19 and had competition only between themselves.

I see this idea, that today, the field on grass is not deep, because people think about the grass of the 90'ies and say that there were more grasscourt specialists back then. Forget about the 90'ies, today the top 10 or even top 20 players are all grasscourt specialists in their own right.



Only Nadal 2008 and Murray can be compared to the level of Becker, Ivanisevich( twice) and Rafter. Sorry but those guys were just better on grass and I'd have Agassi 99 ahead of Nadal in 06/07. Roddick wasn't on the same level even back in 04.

Simple fact is, Roddick is the only genuine grass court player Federer has faced in finals.

You do not know how those same players would perform on the current grass, so why introduce them to the conversation? They were wonderful grass court players for the grass they played on.

BTW. You mention players, that were at one time or the other Wimbledon champions. It is only natural, that they are better than the current players, that are not (even including Murray is a compliment for the today's game). Also, note, that you are mentioning players, that are covering much greater number of years, than the current crop. For example, compare the period between the first Wimbledon title, that Becker won (1985), and the last Wimbledon title that Sampras won (2000) and then the period between the first and last Wimbledon title, that Federer won (2003-2012). It is 15 vs. 9 years, so there is a time for other players to proove, that they are capable on grass and win the title.

BTW, Nadal played Agassi at SW19 and won comfortably. Only the first set was closely contested. This was Nadal with relatively few grasscourt matches under his belt and almost retired Agassi. So, let us not assume too much.
 
Last edited:

leonidas1982

Hall of Fame
http://www.thetennisspace.com/opinion/federers-coach-i-laugh-at-peoples-opinions/

Exclusive interview with Paul Annacone, Roger Federer’s coach, who used to work with Pete Sampras

The Tennis Space

Saturday, 30 June 2012

Exclusive interview with Paul Annacone, Roger Federer’s coach, who used to work with Pete Sampras.

Annacone has told The Tennis Space that it is impossible to say whether Federer at his peak would have beaten Sampras at his peak: “If Roger played Pete at his peak, who knows what would happen? When people make strong arguments, I just laugh. I consider myself a tennis expert, but you just can’t compare two eras like that. It gets me emotionally frustrated when people make snap judgements like that.”

Annacone on how Sampras would fare in 2012: “I was talking about this the other day with Severin Luthi, who coaches Roger with me. We were talking about how the game has changed. I never saw Pete play in these conditions so I don’t know how he would play. I saw Roger when he was younger in fast conditions. What’s really intriguing is to wonder how Roger and Pete would have played if they had played against each other for, say, six years? That’s what was so great about Pete and Andre, and about Roger and Rafa. The players evolve, and the conditions evolve. Rod Laver would have been great whichever era he was in. He would have figured that out. Pete would have been great in this era but he would have had to figure it out. Roger would have been great back in Rod Laver’s era but it would have been a different time.”

Annacone on why he becomes frustrated when others make “snap judgements” about a match-up between two players from different eras: “The subjective evaluations… I consider myself a tennis expert, but I find it difficult to project because it’s two different games. If Pete was to play Roger or Rafa or Novak, here in 2012, it would be a totally different game. You don’t know how Pete would have evolved, and how his game would have changed. He wouid have been great. I don’t mean to give you a non-answer, but when people try to compare era, it’s apples and oranges. It’s a different game.

“What I do believe in, from the bottom of my heart, is that great players will be great players, whichever era they’re in. You can’t project or predict how Laver would have done against Roger. Who knows? The rivalries within the own eras are so interesting. I got to sit in the front row for eight years watching Andre and Pete, the ebbs and flows, the little subtle changes here and there, and what they were doing to adapt. That’s what made it great. If Roger played Pete at his peak, who knows what would happen? When people make strong arguments, I just laugh. People say, ‘Andre would never lose to Rafa on grass’, and I say: ‘Why? How do you know that?’ I’m a tennis expert and I don’t know that. People say, ‘Rafa would never ever lose to Borg on clay’, and you think: ‘Why?’

“The technology is so different now, and how good would Borg be with the technology? Who knows? It’s very easy to say, ‘that would never happen – he’s just a better version of that guy’. You don’t know that.

“That gets me emotionally frustrated when people are quick to made snap judgements. You see these lists of the 20 greatest players of all time, and they’re all ranked. You can put them in a pile, but just can’t rank them, you can’t do that. You can rank their accomplishments, on pure numbers of slams won, you can say that, that’s inarguable. But you can’t say he’s at No 7, and he’s at No 4, and Roger’s at No 1. It’s a totally different game. It makes for great conversation, though.”
 

merlinpinpin

Hall of Fame
Only Nadal 2008 and Murray can be compared to the level of Becker, Ivanisevich( twice) and Rafter. Sorry but those guys were just better on grass and I'd have Agassi 99 ahead of Nadal in 06/07. Roddick wasn't on the same level even back in 04.

Becker was a great grass-court player, although he was way past his prime when he played Sampras at Wimbledon.

Ivanisevic was basically a serve and a headcase (or a headcase and a serve, take your pick).

And Rafter was a joy to watch--and the only time he played Sampras at Wimbledon, he was ranked #21, which gives a good indication of what his results were that year (ie ****-poor).

Throwing names around is just silly without some context. The Becker of the second half of the 80's was truly a force to be reckoned with on grass. But 10 years later? Not so much. Just like the Rafter that played Sampras in Wimby 2000 was far from the level of the Rafter that went on a tear in the summer HC of 1997.

Prime Roddick better than *that* Rafter, late-stage Becker and "just-a-serve" Goran? Pretty much, yes. And Agassi was never as good in Wimbledon than Nadal has been (he'd be closer to Djokovic, although Novak has had better results than him already and his career is only halfway done).
 

fed_rulz

Hall of Fame
Becker was a great grass-court player, although he was way past his prime when he played Sampras at Wimbledon.

Ivanisevic was basically a serve and a headcase (or a headcase and a serve, take your pick).

And Rafter was a joy to watch--and the only time he played Sampras at Wimbledon, he was ranked #21, which gives a good indication of what his results were that year (ie ****-poor).

Throwing names around is just silly without some context. The Becker of the second half of the 80's was truly a force to be reckoned with on grass. But 10 years later? Not so much. Just like the Rafter that played Sampras in Wimby 2000 was far from the level of the Rafter that went on a tear in the summer HC of 1997.

Prime Roddick better than *that* Rafter, late-stage Becker and "just-a-serve" Goran? Pretty much, yes. And Agassi was never as good in Wimbledon than Nadal has been (he'd be closer to Djokovic, although Novak has had better results than him already and his career is only halfway done).


funny how Pete-apologists insist that Becker was at the peak of his powers at wimbledon (he met sampras thrice at wimbledon -- 4, 6 and 8 yrs after his last wimbledon win), yet discredit Federer's win over the defending champion Pete as one that was scored over a "over-the-hill" Sampras. And this, especially after Sampras would go on to play one of the best matches of his career at the USO QF a few weeks later!!
 
funny how Pete-apologists insist that Becker was at the peak of his powers at wimbledon (he met sampras thrice at wimbledon -- 4, 6 and 8 yrs after his last wimbledon win), yet discredit Federer's win over the defending champion Pete as one that was scored over a "over-the-hill" Sampras. And this, especially after Sampras would go on to play one of the best matches of his career at the USO QF a few weeks later!!

So Becker was past his prime at 25 and 27 years old? Because that's how old he was when he played Sampras at Wimbledon. I discredit Federer's win because they only met once. When Roger was a kid and Sampras at that age really only took Wimbledon and the US open seriously. If we're going to compare it has to be Pete between 94-97 and Roger 2004-2007. Federer lost to Henman in the next round. Does that mean Henman was a better grass court player? Obviously not.
 

fed_rulz

Hall of Fame
So Becker was past his prime at 25 and 27 years old? Because that's how old he was when he played Sampras at Wimbledon. I discredit Federer's win because they only met once. When Roger was a kid and Sampras at that age really only took Wimbledon and the US open seriously. If we're going to compare it has to be Pete between 94-97 and Roger 2004-2007. Federer lost to Henman in the next round. Does that mean Henman was a better grass court player? Obviously not.

was 26yr old Borg in his prime? was 25 yr old Agassi in his prime? was mcenroe in his prime when he was 27? remind me how many slams he won @ age 27? merely throwing ages into the mix does not mean **** in this argument.

The point is: when Sampras lost to Federer, he was the defending champion. when Becker last lost to Sampras in wimby, he last won the championship 8 yrs ago. Prime or not prime is irrelevant here.
 
So Becker was past his prime at 25 and 27 years old? Because that's how old he was when he played Sampras at Wimbledon. I discredit Federer's win because they only met once. When Roger was a kid and Sampras at that age really only took Wimbledon and the US open seriously. If we're going to compare it has to be Pete between 94-97 and Roger 2004-2007. Federer lost to Henman in the next round. Does that mean Henman was a better grass court player? Obviously not.

Dude, you are going in circles.

Again, every reasonable poster on this boards thinks, that neither Sampras, nor Federer was at their best, when they met. They met and Federer won, displaying in the process some of the qualities, that made him famos later in his career. Sampras was on his game, so do not try do downgrade Federer's win, just like noone in his right mind is trying to downgrade a champion like Sampras, just because he lost to the future 7 times winner there.

As for Henman vs. Federer. I remember that Henman was on fire in that match (I take it, that, when he saw, that Sampras went down, he probably thought that that is his chance for a title there and was extra motivated), displaying his splendid grasscourt game and lobbing Federer to death. And let us not forget, that Federer lost two tie-breaks in that match. In one of them he held two setpoints and the other was 5-2 or 5-3 (if memory serves) in his favour, before the importance of the occasion took its toll. The other set, that Henman won he broke Federer in the last possible moment. So, having in mind, that Henman was no slouch on grass, we can surely assume, that Federer displayed a fairly high level of tennis against him.
 
was 26yr old Borg in his prime? was 25 yr old Agassi in his prime? was mcenroe in his prime when he was 27? remind me how many slams he won @ age 27? merely throwing ages into the mix does not mean **** in this argument.

The point is: when Sampras lost to Federer, he was the defending champion. when Becker last lost to Sampras in wimby, he last won the championship 8 yrs ago. Prime or not prime is irrelevant here.

The point is, Federer just won Wimbledon the other day. Is he in his prime? No he isn't. Sampras was at his best round 94-97. And yes it is relevant if we're saying one player from another generation is better. You don't compare an aging player to an inexperienced youth. Otherwise as I say, Henman was a better grass court player then Federer. If you're basing Federer being better of that one win then we'll have to go there.
 

fed_rulz

Hall of Fame
The point is, Federer just won Wimbledon the other day. Is he in his prime? No he isn't. Sampras was at his best round 94-97. And yes it is relevant if we're saying one player from another generation is better. You don't compare an aging player to an inexperienced youth. Otherwise as I say, Henman was a better grass court player then Federer. If you're basing Federer being better of that one win then we'll have to go there.

And Becker was at his best in the late 80s, and was as much competition for Sampras as Sampras was for Federer. Thanks for playing this game :)

I'm not reading too much into Federer's win over Sampras, but my issue with you (and others) is that you potray Becker to be an all-conquering grass court giant when he was playing Sampras, and in the process dismiss all of Federer's opponents (Roddick for instance) as being weak.
 
And Becker was at his best in the late 80s, and was as much competition for Sampras as Sampras was for Federer. Thanks for playing this game :)

I'm not reading too much into Federer's win over Sampras, but my issue with you (and others) is that you potray Becker to be an all-conquering grass court giant when he was playing Sampras, and in the process dismiss all of Federer's opponents (Roddick for instance) as being weak.

Yeeah because Becker of mid 90's was still a superior opponent on grass to Roddick. Becker did win a slam in 96 and Ivanisevich on grass was a different animal to where he was anyhere else.
 

fed_rulz

Hall of Fame
Yeeah because Becker of mid 90's was still a superior opponent on grass to Roddick. Becker did win a slam in 96 and Ivanisevich on grass was a different animal to where he was anyhere else.

no he wasn't. Roddick reached finals of wimbledon in 2004 and 2005, besides a SF in 2003. mid-90s becker reached the finals of wimbledon ONCE. Ivanisevic was a mental midget, grass or no grass.

See, your argument is made of fluff -- too much nostalgia/fanboism and not enough facts to support it.
 
no he wasn't. Roddick reached finals of wimbledon in 2004 and 2005, besides a SF in 2003. mid-90s becker reached the finals of wimbledon ONCE. Ivanisevic was a mental midget, grass or no grass.

See, your argument is made of fluff -- too much nostalgia/fanboism and not enough facts to support it.

I am not even sure, that he knows what he is trying to say, let alone support it with facts and proper logic.
 
no he wasn't. Roddick reached finals of wimbledon in 2004 and 2005, besides a SF in 2003. mid-90s becker reached the finals of wimbledon ONCE. Ivanisevic was a mental midget, grass or no grass.

See, your argument is made of fluff -- too much nostalgia/fanboism and not enough facts to support it.

Becker also made the SF of Wimbledon in 94 and lost to Ivanesivich, and made the SF in 97. So stop making out Becker was a clown in mid 90's grass because he wasn't. Roddick's won one slam in his career. Federer's whipping boy can't be compared to somebody who's won three Wimbledons.
 

ARFED

Professional
Federer is the GOAT at Wimbledon, he has been slightly more successful than pete and that is unquestionable. We are talkin about the tournament here, regardless of the surface in which is played on. Take for instance the US Open , I have never heard anybody define this particular championship GOAT based on the surface. Connors won it on 3 different surfaces and Sampras and Federer only did it on 1, and no one seem to care about that fact. So why is it important the type of grass at Wimbledon suddenly?
 
Top