The Big 3 of Grass--put them in order

[Hitman]

No, just that wins over them shouldn't be elevated to the extremes like some Djokovic fans constantly do.

But wins get devalued a lot also. I see that just as much.

Also, if they are still playing and winning after 30, isn't that detrimental to the sport, because we get all the career inflation talk and crapping on players in general?

Maybe forced retirement is the right way.

 

[Hitman]

@GabeT - What are your thoughts on players playing past lets say 31. Good or bad?

 

[RS]

Hitman and Gabe willing to die to defend Djokovic. Good stuff.

 

[duaneeo]

Big 3 of grass, lol.

 

[FedForGOAT]

Need to be very openly biased to say that. He is in his 6th consecutive final right now with chances to go to 7 in 2025. If covid doesn't cancel 2020 he would be at 8 Wimbledon titles already.

Pot, meet kettle?
Oh, the irony of one of the most spamming, openly biased posters…. I’m sorry, I just need to catch my breath.
Lmaoing over here

 

[FedForGOAT]

I am sorry, Novak is the Greatest of all time. And he is just a single title away from Federer's count. Let's not pretend he is a noob on the grass. He is atleast of the same tier as the other two.

That’s just like, your opinion, man.

 

[NatF]

I guess Laver has inflated CYGS also, since he won it in his 30s, yes?

Funny how we don't hear about that.

You love that argument these days. Laver wasn't in his mid 30's, he also beat substantially better players relatively speaking compared to Djokovic in recent years.

Even so I don't think his CYGS makes him greater than his contemporaries Pancho and Rosewall who were a lot older when the Open Era started.

 

[pierceforehands]

Federer, Sampras, Djokovic. That was easy.

Djokovic couldn't even reach the Wimbledon title record, and likely now never will, playing in by far the worst grass field in all of tennis history.

 

[Hitman]

You love that argument these days. Laver wasn't in his mid 30's, he also beat substantially better players relatively speaking compared to Djokovic in recent years.

Even so I don't think his CYGS makes him greater than his contemporaries Pancho and Rosewall who were a lot older when the Open Era started.

I like how being the mid 30s in the modern times, with advances in nutrition, sport science, medicine, is exactly the same as it was being in the 1960s.

30s back then was ancient.

 

[Rosstour]

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

Understood, but in Pete's time they were playing on the same stuff they had been for a while. Slick, low bounce, unpredictable.

It was PETE (and the parade of servebots in his era) that spurred Wimbledon to slow down their courts....just in time for Federer's arrival.

So yes PETE "benefited from" the conditions of his day, but so did everyone else.

Fed got screwed, as the organizers were desperate to turn around the poor viewing numbers from the Sampras snoozefest....and it played right into the hands of Nadal and Djokovic, two guys who are baseline grinders first.

 

[Rosstour]

@GabeT - What are your thoughts on players playing past lets say 31. Good or bad?

If you retired Fed at 31, you never get Wimbledon 14, 15, or US 15, or 40-15

So be careful what you wish for

 

[RS]

I like how being the mid 30s in the modern times, with advances in nutrition, sport science, medicine, is exactly the same as it was being in the 1960s.

30s back then was ancient.

Good point tbf. But I mean most of us here weren't really following tennis from 1969 and/or weren't even alive and Djokovic is a current player so of course it will be pointed at far more in general.

 

[Hitman]

If you retired Fed at 31, you never get Wimbledon 14, 15, or US 15, or 40-15

So be careful what you wish for

You mean I do not need to keep hearing the constant complaining he beat an old Fed?

I'll take it.

You should take it also, because it means Fed has the slam record.

 

[timnz]

Simple. Pick your personal ranking order of who the best modern grass player is.

Not about trophies, just about level/eye test etc.

Federer- Djokovic-Sampras - as the first two won at least as much as Sampras but made more finals whereas Sampras lost earlier in the tournament

 

[Hitman]

Good point tbf. But I mean most of us here weren't really following tennis from 1969 and/or weren't even alive and Djokovic is a current player so of course it will be pointed at far more in general.

Lets not forget, Laver is 5 feet 7, not 6 feet 2 like Djokovic.

 

[RS]

Lets not forget, Laver is 5 feet 7, not 6 feet 2 like Djokovic.

In 1969 people would definitely ripped into Laver from rival fanbases but the internet didn't exist.

 

[Winner Sinner]

However, if we think about it, for Federer to be the GOAT of the surface, the 2008 final he lost to Nadal is a big stain on his legacy.
Federer in his prime or near his prime, simply should never lose to Nadal on grass.
Making a basketball comparison, it's a bit like the stain LeBron carries for losing the 2011 final against the Mavs just for playing in an unworthy way.
Obviously Federer didn't have a bad performance in the 2008 Wimbledon final, let's give credit to Nadal too, the fact remains that he shouldn't have lost that final.

 

[Rosstour]

You mean I do not need to keep hearing the constant complaining he beat an old Fed?

I'll take it.

You should take it also, because it means Fed has the slam record.

He would've been put out to pasture right after winning Wimbledon too. lol

 

[Rosstour]

However, if we think about it, for Federer to be the GOAT of the surface, the 2008 final he lost to Nadal is a big stain on his legacy.
Federer in his prime or near his prime, simply should never lose to Nadal on grass.
Making a basketball comparison, it's a bit like the stain LeBron carries for losing the 2011 final against the Mavs just for playing in an unworthy way.
Obviously Federer didn't have a bad performance in the 2008 Wimbledon final, let's give credit to Nadal too, the fact remains that he shouldn't have lost that final.

Kobe lost to the Celtics and no one holds that against him

I feel like aura and confidence has a lot to do with it

 

[Hitman]

In 1969 people would definitely ripped into Laver from rival fanbases but the internet didn't exist.

Of course. The point is, why isn't this brought up when we constantly hear about how Djokovic won 12 slams in his 30s.

Laver, at 5 feet 7, won a freaking CYGS, in his 30s back in the 60s when they didn't have the same advancements in sport, science, nutrition and medicine we have now. He was basically winning back in the days of the Vietnam war.

The reason we hear it now is, because Djokovic won the slam race. I don't remember anyone making threads in 2017 saying slams were inflated, instead Federer's longevity was rightfully praised and considered GOAT worthy. But, here we are.

 

[timnz]

In 1969 people would definitely ripped into Laver from rival fanbases but the internet didn't exist.

Lets not forget, Laver is 5 feet 7, not 6 feet 2 like Djokovic.

Laver was 5ft 8.5 inches. Rosewall was 5ft 7 inches

 

[Hitman]

He would've been put out to pasture right after winning Wimbledon too. lol

Retire on the spot. Perfect ending.

 

[Rosstour]

Of course. The point is, why isn't this brought up when we constantly hear about how Djokovic won 12 slams in his 30s.

Laver, at 5 feet 7, won a freaking CYGS, in his 30s back in the 60s when they didn't have the same advancements in sport, science, nutrition and medicine we have now. He was basically winning back in the days of the Vietnam war.

The reason we hear it now is, because Djokovic won the slam race. I don't remember anyone making threads in 2017 saying slams were inflated, instead Federer's longevity was rightfully praised and considered GOAT worthy. But, here we are.

I think Djoko's longevity is praised, even by his detractors. The reason it comes up is because his competition is viewed as lesser than the 2008-13 peak B3 era

 

[Hitman]

Laver was 5ft 8.5 inches. Rosewall was 5ft 7 inches

Thanks for the correction.

 

[Rosstour]

Retire on the spot. Perfect ending.

I would have hated that TBH. I didn't want Pete to retire at 31 either

 

[NatF]

I like how being the mid 30s in the modern times, with advances in nutrition, sport science, medicine, is exactly the same as it was being in the 1960s.

30s back then was ancient.

Was it really? There's a long history of players competing well into their late 30's, his rival Rosewall was one of them, even Pancho was fighting hard with the young kids in the early open era.

 

[Hitman]

I think Djoko's longevity is praised, even by his detractors. The reason it comes up is because his competition is viewed as lesser than the 2008-13 peak B3 era

I'll ask again, where were the inflation era threads in 2017 on these boards? I didn't see a single Federer or Nadal fan make one.

 

[Rosstour]

I'll ask again, where were the inflation era threads in 2017 on these boards? I didn't see a single Federer or Nadal fan make one.

Because it was a miracle. Fed looked done and hadn't won a Slam in 4.5 years. And he was playing against the other B3 who were all 5-6 years younger.

With the exception of a brief dip in the elbow/Pepe era Djoko never looked like he'd never win another Slam and sure enough he came back with a vengeance in 2018

 

[Hitman]

Was it really? There's a long history of players competing well into their late 30's, his rival Rosewall was one of them, even Pancho was fighting hard with the young kids in the early open era.

Yes, it was. And a big reason why many were competing was because tennis was still a niche sport that wasn't as global as it is now.

Nobody should be winning CYGS in their 30s, 20s is the physical peak we keep hearing over and over here, right? So why did this dude when it in his 30s? Either the competition was that bad, or, maybe he was just that good.

 

[nolefam_2024]

However, if we think about it, for Federer to be the GOAT of the surface, the 2008 final he lost to Nadal is a big stain on his legacy.
Federer in his prime or near his prime, simply should never lose to Nadal on grass.
Making a basketball comparison, it's a bit like the stain LeBron carries for losing the 2011 final against the Mavs just for playing in an unworthy way.
Obviously Federer didn't have a bad performance in the 2008 Wimbledon final, let's give credit to Nadal too, the fact remains that he shouldn't have lost that final.

This is no way a stain for Federer. He is 3-1 vs nadal. 1 win means nothing in the end.

Like HHH says. 1 win means nothing. The legacy is build by defending day after day month after month year after year .

 

[RS]

Of course. The point is, why isn't this brought up when we constantly hear about how Djokovic won 12 slams in his 30s.

Laver, at 5 feet 7, won a freaking CYGS, in his 30s back in the 60s when they didn't have the same advancements in sport, science, nutrition and medicine we have now. He was basically winning back in the days of the Vietnam war.

The reason we hear it now is, because Djokovic won the slam race. I don't remember anyone making threads in 2017 saying slams were inflated, instead Federer's longevity was rightfully praised and considered GOAT worthy. But, here we are.

If the context of older players is brought up I agree it's wouldn't be bad to bring it up. Also people are a bit biased towards past athletes as well.

 

[Hitman]

I would have hated that TBH. I didn't want Pete to retire at 31 either

Yes, but for the better of the sport, they should retire, as we have seen, beating up the elderly is considered a crime, your slams are immediately devalued.

 

[Hitman]

Because it was a miracle. Fed looked done and hadn't won a Slam in 4.5 years. And he was playing against the other B3 who were all 5-6 years younger.

With the exception of a brief dip in the elbow/Pepe era Djoko never looked like he'd never win another Slam and sure enough he came back with a vengeance in 2018

Because it was a miracle, and everyone was on cloud nine. Hey, I was happy for Federer also, I like him a lot. But when the dusted settled, there were still no threads in 2017 or deep discussions that were had by his fanbase that he was inflating his slams and there are no ATG in their 20s following Djokovic to put these old guys out to dry.

 

[Winner Sinner]

This is no way a stain for Federer. He is 3-1 vs nadal. 1 win means nothing in the end.

Like HHH says. 1 win means nothing. The legacy is build by defending day after day month after month year after year .

At those tennis ionosphere levels it's a stain for me.
Federer in his prime simply had to have an immaculate record against Nadal on the surface.
They are opinions.

 

[Hitman]

If the context of older players is brought up I agree it's wouldn't be bad to bring it up. Also people are a bit biased towards past athletes as well.

The reason why it is not brought up as much as it should is, Laver didn't take away the slam lead from Federer and Nadal, it was Djokovic. He is the bad guy here, despite all things being equal, Laver doubled his CYGS in his 30s also....

 

[NatF]

Yes, it was. And a big reason why many were competing was because tennis was still a niche sport that wasn't as global as it is now.

Nobody should be winning CYGS in their 30s, 20s is the physical peak we keep hearing over and over here, right? So why did this dude when it in his 30s? Either the competition was that bad, or, maybe he was just that good.

lol at this false equivalence.

If you want to argue that Laver benefited from a weak era with his CYGS like Djokovic has then I won't argue with you. The switch from the Amateur to Open Era was the perfect storm for him, I don't think the era was weak per say but the stars did align. I don't think Laver's CYGS necessarily makes him greater than his contemparies that did win it (or the Big 3 for that matter). So no inconsistency here. Laver is still a GOAT candidate and so is Djokovic despite his vulturing, but neither are slam dunk like their supporters would have you believe.

It's not the gotcha moment you dream it to be sorry lol.

 

[mike danny]

But wins get devalued a lot also. I see that just as much.

Also, if they are still playing and winning after 30, isn't that detrimental to the sport, because we get all the career inflation talk and crapping on players in general?

Maybe forced retirement is the right way.

It's more about how much and how you win.

 

[Hitman]

lol at this false equivalence.

If you want to argue that Laver benefited from a weak era with his CYGS like Djokovic has then I won't argue with you. The switch from the Amateur to Open Era was the perfect storm for him, I don't think the era was weak per say but the stars did align. I don't think Laver's CYGS necessarily makes him greater than his contemparies that did win it (or the Big 3 for that matter). So no inconsistency here. Laver is still a GOAT candidate and so is Djokovic despite his vulturing, but neither are slam dunk like their supporters would have you believe.

It's not the gotcha moment you dream it to be sorry lol.

The point is simple, why is there no complaining about it, why are Djokovic's achievements in his 30s looked down upon. You provided the possible explanations on why it could have been possible for him in your personal opinion, and fair enough, that still doesn't answer the point I am making. Why doesn't it get mentioned, why was it never mentioned here in all the time, both you and I have been here?

So, yeah, nice try, but you really didn't answer what I am asking.

 

[smoledman]

Federer won 8 Wimbledons + 10 Halle + silver medal on the surface.

 

[Hitman]

It's more about how much and how you win.

Please provide an example of what you mean.

 

[mike danny]

Please provide an example of what you mean.

Djokovic at Wimb 2019 to 2022 inclusive did not play at a high level, IMO, but still won.

Djokovic winning 2 AO titles while suffering injuries also isn't a good reflection on the competiton.

 

[NatF]

The point is simple, why is there no complaining about it, why are Djokovic's achievements in his 30s looked down upon. You provided the possible explanations on why it could have possible for him in your personal opinion, and fair enough, that still doesn't answer the point I am making. Why doesn't it get mentioned, why was it never mentioned here in all the time, both you and I have been here?

So, yeah, nice try, but you really didn't answer what I am asking.

Why does no one complain about a player who retired nearly 40 years ago, who most never even saw live and only tends to get token mentions in GOAT debates? Great question Moriarty. Most of Laver's haters are probably either not with us or not computer literate

 

[Hitman]

Djokovic at Wimb 2019 to 2022 inclusive did not play at a high level, IMO, but still won.

Djokovic winning 2 AO titles while suffering injuries also isn't a good reflection on the competiton.

Federer had back issues in W 2003 and W 2012 and he ended up winning both of those.

Also, in regards to W 2019 to 2022, I will have to disagree with you. I get it that is your subjective view but it is not one I share. Of the three, I would say his 2021 was relatively the easiest, but his level overall was fine.

Has he he played at a higher level? Yes, 2015 is the perfect example, but I don't think he was below the minimum threshold needed to win level wise the other times.

 

[nolefam_2024]

At those tennis ionosphere levels it's a stain for me.
Federer in his prime simply had to have an immaculate record against Nadal on the surface.
They are opinions.

I don't know what tennis ionosphere you visit to but they are having very dangerous notions of what is to be expected from a player.

Matches are not played on paper like Federer says below.

To say this is a stain on Federer is insulting to both Federer and Nadal lol

 

[Hitman]

Why does no one complain about a player who retired nearly 40 years ago, who most never even saw live and only tends to get token mentions in GOAT debates? Great question Moriarty. Most of Laver's haters are probably either not with us or not computer literate

Nice.

 

[RS]

Why does no one complain about a player who retired nearly 40 years ago, who most never even saw live and only tends to get token mentions in GOAT debates? Great question Moriarty. Most of Laver's haters are probably either not with us or not computer literate

nearly 50

 

[NatF]

nearly 50

My point stands all the stronger then lol

 

[mike danny]

Federer had back issues in W 2003 and W 2012 and he ended up winning both of those.

Also, in regards to W 2019 to 2022, I will have to disagree with you. I get it that is your subjective view but it is not one I share. Of the three, I would say his 2021 was relatively the easiest, but his level overall was fine.

Has he he played at a higher level? Yes, 2015 is the perfect example, but I don't think he was below the minimum threshold needed to win level wise the other times.

I think Fed was over those injuries by the later stages. Djokovic's remained until the end.

In 2019 he really should've lost and in 2022 he lost a ton of sets to players he shouldn't be losing them to. Didn't play anywhere near as well as Fed in 2014 and 2015, so IMO, they qualify as inflated.

 

[Third Serve]

I like how being the mid 30s in the modern times, with advances in nutrition, sport science, medicine, is exactly the same as it was being in the 1960s.

30s back then was ancient.

The sport was less physically taxing in the 60’s and before, so you had a lot of players continue to be good into their 30’s. So Laver still being a solid player at age 31 isn’t super alarming. In fact, his compatriots Rosewall and Newcombe also had impressive longevity if we view it through a modern lens. And Bill Tilden was still playing a few tournaments during the early 1950’s when he was almost 60.

As tennis got more physical in the 70’s, player careers shortened, so you had a lot of ATGs who were already starting to decline by 26 and were considered ancient by 30, like McEnroe, Borg, Becker, Lendl, etc. Another major factor was the succession of major technological changes within the sport during this time, like the switch away from wood rackets. Player styles became obsolete earlier into their careers than before.

We haven’t had any such changes since the advent of poly in the late 90’s and early 00’s which helped send the S&V players packing. And with the advances in nutrition and training like you mentioned, player careers have been prolonged.

However, I don’t think this has resulted in players hitting their primes in their late 20’s and early 30’s as some have suggested. Most players still get into that peak level in their early to mid 20’s, IMO. I think its effect has only been to slow player decline. What used to be a quick fall over the cliff has now turned into a glacial slowing. For example, Fed was in a state of roughly gradual decline after 2006 (although I think he can absolutely still be considered prime in 2007-early 2010), until injuries finally forced him out in 2020/21. In the 90’s that might have happened ten years earlier in his career.

 

[Winner Sinner]

I don't know what tennis ionosphere you visit to but they are having very dangerous notions of what is to be expected from a player.

Matches are not played on paper like Federer says below.

To say this is a stain on Federer is insulting to both Federer and Nadal lol

It's not an insult.
Judgments and evaluations go hand in hand with expectations.
Federer is considered by the vast majority of people to be the King of the surface, and the GOAT of the surface simply cannot lose a Wimbledon final to Nadal.
It remains a stain in the midst of a dominion on the surface in its indisputable prime, but it is still a stain.