Hitman
Bionic Poster
We can disagree 100% on all of this, that is fine, as this entire thread is just based on subjective opinion.
The Big 3 of Grass--put them in order
- Thread starter Rosstour
- Start date
We can disagree 100% on all of this, that is fine, as this entire thread is just based on subjective opinion.
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
My point is that he wasn’t “old”. We know their peak years didn’t overlap but it’s not like he was playing and beating 40 year old Fed in the first round
MeatTornado
Talk Tennis Guru
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Novak getting devoured in here lol you love to see it
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
imagining hypothetical losses of the player you don’t like is a much used crutch to deal with the actual wins of that same player
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
He's just not in their league bestie, it's ok
Hitman
Bionic Poster
I think of all of Djokovic's insane achievements, his 7 Wimbledon titles are what sting the most to his detractors. Even more than the actual slam record.
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
He has 7 Wimbledons which he won by beating Fed 3 times and Nadal twice. All in the finals or SFs. And absent Covid he’d likely have 8He's just not in their league bestie, it's ok
It’s beyond OK
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
Yes, they did not expect it and still can’t deal with it.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
How dare he besmirch the holy grounds of SW19.
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
It should sting. I want 8th as well.
He is just too good on grass and people who don't understand why should delete their ttw account.
Insane returning, able to keep ball on such a depth that no netrusher can come to net and backhand that is always low which is scary on grass. Above average spot serving and great grass forehand to add to the skill list. Now he is declining and not sure if we will see his best but in 2011 to 15 he was incredible.
jl809
Legend
Fed was 33 in the 2015 final, so a more reasonable comparison question is whether 2021 Djokovic beats 2015 Fed at Wimbledon imo. A bit like how a more reasonable comparison to 2019 Federer is 37 year old Djokovic, who got smacked around like an amateur in the 2024 Wimbledon final
Also prime Fed at Wimbledon - ie Fed from 03-09 - was possibly the clutchest version of Federer that ever existed, winning 30/34 tiebreaks including 11/12 in Wimbledon finals (featuring 4 in a row in finals against peak Nadal, his match up nemesis). His clutch play prevented a loss in the 07 Wimbledon final 5th set and stopped the 2008 final turning into a beatdown, then allowed him to prevent a 2 set deficit in the 09 final
B
Bride of Alcaraz
Guest
Federer-Nadal 2006-2008 is the highest level of grass tennis of the 21st century, that is for CERTAIN.
I've voted, however I wish I can undo since Borg isn't included in the poll option.
Sorry @Rosstour, but Borg who barely turn 25 set the bench mark with 5 straight Wimbledon titles including 6 straight finals should be part of the discussion. It took the great McEnroe peaking in 1981 playing his A+ game to stop him.
I have Borg at #3 in all time greatest grass player
Hitman
Bionic Poster
He's pretty good, that is for sure. 10 Wimbledon finals is just freaking insane.
Djokovic is the only player to play 10 finals on two different surfaces in slams.
BauerAlmeida
Hall of Fame
If you think grass is only what it was in the 90s then sure, Djokovic doesn't belong. I mean, it's purely speculation but I agree that Djokovic wouldn't dominate the way Sampras did.
But surfaces change, the grass Djokovic played on in his era is every bit as grass as the one before. You may not like it but he has 7 titles and 3 finals and they are as valid as the ones in 90's grass.
But surfaces change, the grass Djokovic played on in his era is every bit as grass as the one before. You may not like it but he has 7 titles and 3 finals and they are as valid as the ones in 90's grass.
Rosstour
Talk Tennis Guru
One wonders how Djokovic and Nadal would've managed if the grass had been fast when they really matured.
Some of the speed stats from the Fedal Era are just grossly slow
Pheasant
Legend
Out of my own curiosity, I had to check some stats among these 3.
Sampras
101-20, .835 overall, 1.37 D.R.
11-3, .786 vs top-10, 1.20 D.R.
6-0, 1.000 vs top-5, 1.49 D.R.
Federer
192-29, .869 overall, 1.38 D.R.
21-11, .656 vs top-10, 1.15 D.R.
11-6, .647 vs top-5, 1.11 D.R.
Djokovic
120-20, .857 overall, 1.33 D.R.
16-10, .615 vs top-10, 1.08 D.R.
6-7, .462 vs top-5, 0.95 D.R.
other notable stats:
longest winning streak on grass:
Federer 65
Djokovic 34
Sampras 23
longest winning streak vs top-10 on grass
Federer 11
Sampras 8
Djokovic 6
I have to go Federer > Sampras > Djokovic here.
Sampras
101-20, .835 overall, 1.37 D.R.
11-3, .786 vs top-10, 1.20 D.R.
6-0, 1.000 vs top-5, 1.49 D.R.
Federer
192-29, .869 overall, 1.38 D.R.
21-11, .656 vs top-10, 1.15 D.R.
11-6, .647 vs top-5, 1.11 D.R.
Djokovic
120-20, .857 overall, 1.33 D.R.
16-10, .615 vs top-10, 1.08 D.R.
6-7, .462 vs top-5, 0.95 D.R.
other notable stats:
longest winning streak on grass:
Federer 65
Djokovic 34
Sampras 23
longest winning streak vs top-10 on grass
Federer 11
Sampras 8
Djokovic 6
I have to go Federer > Sampras > Djokovic here.
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
Dominance ratio is flawed stat in this time frame. It is widely accepted that it supports big servers.
Now you are adding two completely different type of courts one which was so serve heavy that they changed the speed of the court vs one baseline heavy.
Of course Sampras DR is through the roof. He is better server and on faster grass. That doesn't tell much.
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
Does “fast” in this context mean low bouncing and skittish? Modern tech and training has generally made the sport more precise and faster from what I can see
Hood_Man
G.O.A.T.
Rosstour
Talk Tennis Guru
Pretty much yes. More precise yes, more predictable yes. And that has helped Nadal and Djokovic immensely
The Blond Blur
G.O.A.T.
This isn’t even remotely close to being an apples to apples comparison tbh.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
You think Nadal wins 14 RG if he played in the 70s. OK.
The Blond Blur
G.O.A.T.
The difference is that Borg effectively retired 20+ years before RAFA had his breakout season. Tennis might as well have been a different sport when you are comparing the 70’s to the 00’s. Contrast that with the Big 3 on grass where they more or less played in the same era. It’s just that Fedal played each other when they were in their peaks/primes on grass. Whereas Fedovic played each other when Fed was past his best and Joker was smack dab in the middle of his best.
Last edited:
Hitman
Bionic Poster
I am talking about timing. Period. And unless someone can tell me that Nadal being born in the late 80s didn't help him hit that sweet spot where he won 14 slams because he would have done it irrespective of when he played I will stick with my statement.
The Blond Blur
G.O.A.T.
My guy, Borg had retired before RAFA was even born l, lol. Joker playing Fed when Fed was still at or near his best was actually feasible. That’s why it’s not an apples to apples comparison. In order for RAFA to have faced Borg at his best in the 70’s-early 80’s we’d need to invent time travel. Joker actually had the chance to play Fed at Wimby in his prime. He just didn’t.
NatF
Bionic Poster
All the Big 3 have inflated title counts relative to talent compared to prior ATG's imo. Djokovic has the most inflated count compared to the rest of the Big 3
Hitman
Bionic Poster
My friend. I will say this one last time. If you have been paying attention to this thread, you will be seeing statement that Sampras would have crushed Djokovic, and even in that scenario, Sampras was retired many years before Djokovic even played his first pro match.
My statement is not bound to any specific scenario, the way you are painting it to me. My point is that timing is everything, Nadal doesn't win 14 RG if he played in the 70s, with a wooden racket, with peak Borg and with less advances in medicine to help him with his knee issue. To me, the comparison is being made about when you play your best, and Nadal playing in the modern era was a big part in him winning 14.
No further comment from me on this.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
All the Big 3 have inflated title counts relative to talent compared to prior ATG's imo. Djokovic has the most inflated count compared to the rest of the Big 3
I guess Laver has inflated CYGS also, since he won it in his 30s, yes?
Funny how we don't hear about that.
Winner Sinner
Hall of Fame
In the end, like the vast majority, I also voted for Federer-Sampras-Djokovic.
Having said that, passing off Djokovic as someone who doesn't belong on the surface's Mount Rushmore on grass is a rather ambiguous reasoning that leads to the paranormal.
It doesn't matter that the surface has changed drastically in recent decades, otherwise we will also exclude Federer from this debate, like anyone who will have achieved significant results in the last two decades onwards, limiting ourselves to including only players who have played on traditional grass in the debate.
Instead, one must think about what was achieved on grass, obviously giving almost all the importance to what he was able to demonstrate at Wimbledon, and not for hypothetical discussions of whether Tizio had played in era X or Gaius in era Y.
Well a player like Djokovic capable of winning Wimbledon 7 times plus 3 other finals is unquestionably part of the conversation.
He beat Federer 3 times in as many finals, ok, he was a Federer who was already well over 30, but he still remains Federer, that is, a type of opponent even over 30 that for example a Sampras never faced during his reign at Wimbledon.
I would also give a lot of credit to his final loss to Nadal at Queen's in 2008, after a battle, against the best version of Nadal ever on the surface, and it was a Djokovic who had yet to enter his prime.
Spanish champion who Djokovic would later be able to defeat twice at Wimbledon in particularly inspired moments from the Majorcan.
In the end I chose Sampras before Djokovic, simply because he gave me the idea that he was more dominant on the surface.
But those who prefer Djokovic to Pistol Pete have nothing to be shocked about.
Having said that, passing off Djokovic as someone who doesn't belong on the surface's Mount Rushmore on grass is a rather ambiguous reasoning that leads to the paranormal.
It doesn't matter that the surface has changed drastically in recent decades, otherwise we will also exclude Federer from this debate, like anyone who will have achieved significant results in the last two decades onwards, limiting ourselves to including only players who have played on traditional grass in the debate.
Instead, one must think about what was achieved on grass, obviously giving almost all the importance to what he was able to demonstrate at Wimbledon, and not for hypothetical discussions of whether Tizio had played in era X or Gaius in era Y.
Well a player like Djokovic capable of winning Wimbledon 7 times plus 3 other finals is unquestionably part of the conversation.
He beat Federer 3 times in as many finals, ok, he was a Federer who was already well over 30, but he still remains Federer, that is, a type of opponent even over 30 that for example a Sampras never faced during his reign at Wimbledon.
I would also give a lot of credit to his final loss to Nadal at Queen's in 2008, after a battle, against the best version of Nadal ever on the surface, and it was a Djokovic who had yet to enter his prime.
Spanish champion who Djokovic would later be able to defeat twice at Wimbledon in particularly inspired moments from the Majorcan.
In the end I chose Sampras before Djokovic, simply because he gave me the idea that he was more dominant on the surface.
But those who prefer Djokovic to Pistol Pete have nothing to be shocked about.
The Blond Blur
G.O.A.T.
Dude, I’ve been paying attention. I know what’s going on. I saw the exchange between nolefam_2024, MichaelNadal, and yourself. All I did was point out the flaw in your argument. You may not be talking about any specific time period. Whereas MichaelNadal and especially I were. Borgdal were born 30 years apart. They were products of their own eras. Contrast that to the Big 3 who effectively played under the same conditions and it’s not even close to being an apples to apples comparison.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
Disagree, I will leave it at that.
The Blond Blur
G.O.A.T.
That’s cool with me, I just don’t think they’re even remotely similar.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
He was old compared to 27 year old Novak.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
Hence why we are disagreeing 100% on this. I don't see anything further to discuss here.
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
Probably true. But the opposite is also true, Sampras benefitted from the conditions he faced. Take him away from those conditions and his results would likely be very different.
That’s why I always ask what people mean when that ask who is better. Are posters here claiming that Sampras would have won as much as he did if he had played in current grass and conditions? There’s nothing to support that
Hitman
Bionic Poster
Players are products of their environment and the conditions that their games have been built for IMO.
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
He was older. He wasn’t “old”.
I have no opinion on who would have won if they were the same age. Too many unknowns for that. I’m just pointing out that Fed wasn’t some washed up version of himself (like Borg when he returned to play)
Pheasant
Legend
Which makes it more impressive that Fed barely trails Pete in service hold% on grass(92.7 vs 92.5), despite playing until he was a month shy of 40 years old.
To your point, I checked Nadal's DR for his career on clay. It's 1.38; the same as Fed's on grass. That 100% supports your claim that DR is serve-dominated. You are right on the money there. I learned something new. DR is a serving stat.
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
You probably know this better than most here but I was talking to a physical trainer recently about the best exercises for different sports and he said (paraphrasing) “you train for what you are going to do”. Sampras trained for a very specific kind of tennis, just like Novak did. We have no way of knowing if either would have done as well under different conditions.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Fed was actually older than 2024 Djoker in 2019.
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
Nadal is very much the god of clay. His numbers are beyond this world. No one should be compared to him. And that doesn't prove dr is serve dominated stat.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
Honest question, but do you think players should be force to retire after a certain age, lets say, 31, so wins against them cannot be used to devalue the other player's achievement?
RaulRamirez
Legend
I've looked at it from two different angles.
A. Djokovic, Federer, Sampras
B. Novak, Pete, Roger
Alphabetical order rocks.
But seriously, my inclination is Fed, Sampras, Djokovic, and with very small margins among them. And as a general point, I'll state what should be obvious: There is no single way to win at or even dominate Wimbledon.
A. Djokovic, Federer, Sampras
B. Novak, Pete, Roger
Alphabetical order rocks.
But seriously, my inclination is Fed, Sampras, Djokovic, and with very small margins among them. And as a general point, I'll state what should be obvious: There is no single way to win at or even dominate Wimbledon.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
No, just that wins over them shouldn't be elevated to the extremes like some Djokovic fans constantly do.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
That is correct, I trained people for a living, and when I trained athlete who were looking to be the best at their chosen sport, the workouts were specifically targeted to help them get the best possible outcome each time they competed.
The Blond Blur
G.O.A.T.
…And I said I was cool with us disagreeing and ending the conversation there
Similar threads
