The Big 3 of Grass--put them in order

What is the pecking order on grass?

  • Sampras-Djokovic-Federer

  • Sampras-Federer-Djokovic

  • Djokovic-Sampras-Federer

  • Djokovic-Federer-Sampras

  • Federer-Sampras-Djokovic

  • Federer-Djokovic-Sampras

Results are only viewable after voting.
Winner Sinner said:
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.
Click to expand...
Completely disagree. These are absolutish crazy notions.
 
mike danny said:
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.
Click to expand...

Fed still won matches against elite players in those event to even make it deep though.

And in 2019, Federer should have won, but he didn't, credit to Djokovic for being super clutch and he also had the entire crowd against him.

In 2022, he lost sets, but you forget the intense pressure Djokovic was under, he was not playing AO or USO that year, he had lost RG, he was under insane pressure to pull off the win. This is very similar to Federer in 2009 at RG, where he lost a lot of sets on his way to title also. In the final though, Djokovic played extremely solid, Kyrgios was serving bombs, and also had the 2-0 H2H against him, and Djokovic stepped up. So, I disagree with you here. Neither title is inflated, unless you think the same for Federer's RG 2009 win.
 
Hitman said:
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.
Click to expand...

Right bc it wasn't the same situation lol

It wasn't until years later that we saw the Zverev generation wasn't going to push the older guys aside, and Djokodal kept winning all the biggest titles, that "CIE" became a thing
 
Rosstour said:
Right bc it wasn't the same situation lol

It wasn't until years later that we saw the Zverev generation wasn't going to push the older guys aside, and Djokodal kept winning all the biggest titles, that "CIE" became a thing
Click to expand...

In other words, when Djokovic continued to win and the slam record was as good as gone. :)
 
Hitman said:
In other words, when Djokovic continued to win and the slam record was as good as gone. :)
Click to expand...
I coined the term in early 2018 before Djokovic even began his comeback and Federer had a 4 slam cushion on Nadal. So wrong again :)
 
Third Serve said:
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.
Click to expand...

While you make some points here, and yes, some of them I do agree with. You think haters will just take this and say - yeah, that explains it, I better stop hating on Laver now.

Haters will hate regardless, and the real reason we don't see it here IMO is because no one cares about Laver enough to emotionally invest that kind of resentment towards him and his achievements. The slam race though is very different, and most have lived it and were emotionally invested in their fav to win.
 
Rosstour said:
Right bc it wasn't the same situation lol

It wasn't until years later that we saw the Zverev generation wasn't going to push the older guys aside, and Djokodal kept winning all the biggest titles, that "CIE" became a thing
Click to expand...
CIE was coined before Djokovic’s 2018 comeback was even a thing, as this pretty popular thread attests.

We're living the Career Inflation Era

We're in an unprecedented era in tennis. We have a World #1 who is actually close to the age that normal people retire. Slam counts of the top players have gone through the roof. Former top players have faded, broken down. Meanwhile, the early 90s generation came and did..... pretty much...
tt.tennis-warehouse.com tt.tennis-warehouse.com

This thread wasn’t made by a Fed fan, but there are tons of Fed fans in the thread who agree with its premise. You can even read a Metsman rant on the subject.

The idea that nobody called out the era for what it was when Federer was the one winning Slams is a myth some Djokovic fans like to perpetuate so they can accuse Fraud fans of having double standards. A lot of people were already seeing the weakness of the era by Wimbledon 2017 when a nearly 36-year-old Fed blew through the competition without dropping a set.

It’s true that the perception of a weak era didn’t happen immediately after AO 2017, but that Slam was also uniquely difficult for the era. Same reason nobody really complains about a weak field for Novak’s Wimbledon 2018 win: the Nadal match said quite enough.
 
Last edited:
NatF said:
I coined the term in early 2018 before Djokovic even began his comeback and Federer had a 4 slam cushion on Nadal. So wrong again :)
Click to expand...

Yes, I'll give you that for 2018.

But where was all the talk in 2017? Yeah, there was none.
 
NatF said:
My point stands all the stronger then lol
Click to expand...
He has a point imo. But yeah TTW is not gonna go hard on players back then like they do Djokovic lmao let alone before Laver which is pretty extensive itself.
 
BauerAlmeida said:
This applies to current times too, doesn't it?
Click to expand...
Read the last couple paragraphs.

And also I don’t think Laver hit a new peak in 1969 tbh. That was the first full season he played after the Open Era started. He also had a CYGS in 1962 and he almost completely locked down the Pro Slams when he was in the Pro Tour during most of the 60’s. Call it a continuation of prime, not a new personal record.
 
Rosstour said:
Simple. Pick your personal ranking order of who the best modern grass player is.

Not about trophies, just about level/eye test etc.
Click to expand...
Sampras did not have the fortune of modern medicine at his disposal, which is why Federer is first.
MichaelNadal said:
Novak still doesn't seem to belong. His timing is impeccable though
Click to expand...
More Wimbledon titles and finals in his 30s than in his 20s for him, and that despite the cancellation of Wimbledon 2020.
Is it a coincidence that he was more successful on natural surfaces in his later years than in his prime?
:sneaky:
 
Winner Sinner said:
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.
Click to expand...

I mean Sampras in his prime lost to Krajicek, that is far worse.

Djokovic in his prime lost a Wimbledon final in straight sets, easy straight sets, to Andy Murray, which is arguably worse still.
 
Rosstour said:
Simple. Pick your personal ranking order of who the best modern grass player is.

Not about trophies, just about level/eye test etc.
Click to expand...
1. Federer 2. Becker 3. Sampras

1st set of 1995 wimbledon final thought we saw as close to peak Boris v pete and Boris snuck the set out. Federer v Sampras we saw play once both not peak but Federer got the W. Federer v Becker i think goes to Federer as his return was better than Pete so i think he would have dealt with Becker's serve better and his all round game just a bit too much for Boris even at his peak.
No disrespect to Djokovic here, by his own admission i think he has said on grass Becker was greater than he was when Boris was at his best. Djokovic and Borg and McEnroe next tier.
I am fortunate to have seen all but Mac and Borg live on centre and my goodness Roger Pete Boris and Novak were spell binding when on it when playing on grass. Poetry in motion.
 
NatF said:
Well calling it an inflation in era in 2018 extends to 2017 as well, I wouldn't call one slam an era. Really the end of 2016 is where it began IMO.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. As much as i love Fedal, in 2017 they were nowhere near what they once were, there AO final was abysmal quality by their standards, and yet they won 2 slams each that year. I am not convinced they win any slams if Sinner and Alcaraz were around at the level they are at now back then.
 
messiahrobins said:
Totally agree. As much as i love Fedal, in 2017 they were nowhere near what they once were, there AO final was abysmal quality by their standards, and yet they won 2 slams each that year. I am not convinced they win any slams if Sinner and Alcaraz were around at the level they are at now back then.
Click to expand...
Nadal, at 31, would have easily dispatched them at Roland Garros, please.
:whistle:
 
Even if "CIE" was coined prior to 2018, and even if it were coined by a "neutral" fan, that doesn't legitimize it.
It's highly subjective and derogatory, as were all the claims of "weak era" that some hurled - and perhaps, still hurl - at Roger.

Being (admittedly) more of a fan of team sports than individual sports, I simply see no such contextualizing (based on age) in those team sport discussions. To be clear, those discussions can be more than spirited with the same percentage of partisans, but if, say, Tom Brady, wins a Super Bowl at age 43, it is treated the same as one he won at age 25. I get that individual sports are different but my point does remain. Again, the whole process becomes an exercise in valuing hypothetical peaks and primes more than valuing actual achievements.
 
RaulRamirez said:
Even if "CIE" was coined prior to 2018, and even if it were coined by a "neutral" fan, that doesn't legitimize it.
It's highly subjective and derogatory, as were all the claims of "weak era" that some hurled - and perhaps, still hurl - at Roger.

Being (admittedly) more of a fan of team sports than individual sports, I simply see no such contextualizing (based on age) in those team sport discussions. To be clear, those discussions can be more than spirited with the same percentage of partisans, but if, say, Tom Brady, wins a Super Bowl at age 43, it is treated the same as one he won at age 25. I get that individual sports are different but my point does remain. Again, the whole process becomes an exercise in valuing hypothetical peaks and primes more than valuing actual achievements.
Click to expand...
The TW Staff has not taken ANY action for these type of terms which has legitimized it on this site. Lowering the quality of discussion. This should not be allowed at all and strict action need to be taken.
 
nolefam_2024 said:
The TW Staff has not taken ANY action for these type of terms which has legitimized it on this site. Lowering the quality of discussion. This should not be allowed at all and strict action need to be taken.
Click to expand...
I am not a fan of that term, but I don't see that it needs to be policed at all -- just rebutted.
I'm not offended by it, just don't agree with it.
 
RaulRamirez said:
I am not a fan of that term, but I don't see that it needs to be policed at all -- just rebutted.
I'm not offended by it, just don't agree with it.
Click to expand...
No. The way the discussion has been diluted , this needs a ban.

What the members are saying is because the competition is weaker in those years it doesn't matter whatever happened in them.
 
Federer-Sampras-Djokovic in terms of level but in terms of overall achievements Djokovic might be slightly ahead of Pete with all of his additional finals.
 
mike danny said:
Yeah, the reason is being younger.
Click to expand...
Why should younger players not be given credit for their victories? When Alcaraz beat Djokovic in the 2023 Wimbledon final I never even thought about the age difference but simply gave credit to him for being the better player on the day.
 
messiahrobins said:
Totally agree. As much as i love Fedal, in 2017 they were nowhere near what they once were, there AO final was abysmal quality by their standards, and yet they won 2 slams each that year. I am not convinced they win any slams if Sinner and Alcaraz were around at the level they are at now back then.
Click to expand...

If 37yo Djoko is getting the better of Alcaraz 2025, no way Alcaraz 2025 is beating 2017erer and 2017dal
 
I think if it’s not about total trophy count, just about level/eye test etc. as stated by OP, we surely have to include SuperMac and Borg?

Although it’s not like they don’t also have some pretty good trophy cabinets lol.

Sampras, Federer and SuperMac are the three to me who could impose their will on grass and had a near mystical level of racquetface awareness where they could fly through a match in a very rapid way and it was hard to see what an opponent could actually do to change the course and monentum of a match when they were rolling.
 
Subway Tennis said:
What about all the Sampras threads, though? It’s been pretty cool to see all the new Sampras-related stuff in GPPD.
Click to expand...

Sampras is just a cudgel used by Djokofans to dunk on Fed. I think they might be a little nervous that Djoko won't get to 9 Wimbledons, so let's pump Sampras up to make Fed look worse even as the outright recordholder
 
pierceforehands said:
I mean Sampras in his prime lost to Krajicek, that is far worse.

Djokovic in his prime lost a Wimbledon final in straight sets, easy straight sets, to Andy Murray, which is arguably worse still.
Click to expand...
For me there is a substantial difference between those matches and the 2008 Wimbledon final.
First of all let's say that Djokovic was not as unstoppable as Federer 2003-2009 on grass.
Just like Sampras's defeat against Krajieck, a bit the equivalent of Nadal's defeat at Roland Garros 2009 against Soderling, those are defeats perhaps also caused by a certain unconscious underestimation of the opponent, while Federer in that 2008 Wimbledon final had nothing to underestimate, given that Nadal had already forced him to reach the fifth set the previous year, but above all he had just given him a memorable lesson in the Roland Garros final Garros, therefore extra motivation for Federer, who simply in his temple had all the means to redeem that humiliation, and instead between that Wimbledon final and the following one at the Australian Open, he reached his lowest point in the rivalry with Nadal and emerged literally dazed with broken bones.
 
It’s been over 20 years and I still don’t think the sight of Federer smacking down the line drive backhands at Wimbledon without even letting the ball bounce has been surpassed in terms of pure level. Just so quick to the ball and such cavalier aggression without sacrificing consistency. The sight of him doing that still looks so outrageous even now.
 
Federer by a hair over Sampras due to his longevity and 2003 SF/F peak.

Djokovic record is inflated (as are many of his title counts) by some of the weakest competition of any slam ever. A geriatric Federer in 3 finals and Berretini, Kyrgios. His main same aged grass rival was finished with injury by 2016, after which Djokovic won another 5 titles. Huge stroke of luck and timing.
 
Winner Sinner said:
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.
Click to expand...
And you think Pete stands much of a chance vs 2008 Nadal on bouncy, slow-medium new Wimbledon grass? With that BH?
 
  • Like
Reactions: TMF
Rosstour said:
Sampras is just a cudgel used by Djokofans to dunk on Fed. I think they might be a little nervous that Djoko won't get to 9 Wimbledons, so let's pump Sampras up to make Fed look worse even as the outright recordholder
Click to expand...
There will be extraordinary scenes on here if Djokovic equals Roger GOATerer on 8 Wimbledons o_O

I have a feeling there will be some pretty bad behaviour from basically every fanbase :-D
 
fedfan24 said:
Federer by a hair over Sampras due to his longevity and 2003 SF/F peak.

Djokovic record is inflated (as are many of his title counts) by some of the weakest competition of any slam ever. A geriatric Federer in 3 finals and Berretini, Kyrgios. His main same aged grass rival was finished with injury by 2016, after which Djokovic won another 5 titles. Huge stroke of luck and timing.
Click to expand...
That was wild seeing Kyrgios in a major final. I think that SF walkover really affected him. He landed ass-backwards in a Wimbledon title match and had no business being there and just imploded mentally in the final.

The only positive for me in that final was Djokovic got some revenge after Kyrgios had been claiming for years that he was a better player than Novak because of those wins he snuck in when Novak was in his ElbowVic phase circa 2017/18 :-D
 
Has no-one mentioned the 2018 or 2019 Wimbledon draws yet either? Y'know, Djoker's only 2 'respectable' post-15 Wimbledon wins according to TTW... where before their matches, Nadal faced a zoning DelPo in an instant 5 set classic while Djoker faced... Nishikori... or Federer excised his 2008 demons vs Nadal while Djoker faced... RBA...
 
jl809 said:
Has no-one mentioned the 2018 or 2019 Wimbledon draws yet either? Y'know, Djoker's only 2 'respectable' post-15 Wimbledon wins according to TTW... where before their matches, Nadal faced a zoning DelPo in an instant 5 set classic while Djoker faced... Nishikori... or Federer excised his 2008 demons vs Nadal while Djoker faced... RBA...
Click to expand...
It is no coincidence that Djokovic has won so many Major titles while being over 30 years old with draws quite favorable to him and against dubious competition, exemplified by players born in the 90s as their "biggest threats", well, as we know, it only remained on paper.
 
Last edited:
Rosstour said:
I think he will get to 9 or 10. I think he gets 8 this year and wins the Channel Slam
Click to expand...
Who do you think his final opponents will be? Sinner at Wimbledon and Alcaraz at RG?

Djokovic is looking good for Wimbledon this year imo based on what we have seen so far and seeing how much of an impact Murray has had on his aggression.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Oceans II
Ranking these arguments for GOAT/BOATness
Replies
10
Views
431
GabeT
GabeT
M
  • Poll Poll
The Big 3 of Hard Courts - rank them in order
Replies
12
Views
268
inflation_era
inflation_era
GrassMasters
  • Poll Poll
The Big 3 of USO--put them in order
Replies
43
Views
813
MeatTornado
MeatTornado
R
Best grass courters of last 12 years
Replies
36
Views
3K
6-3 6-0
6
federerhoogenbandfan
  • Poll Poll
What order would you put these 4 years in?
Replies
11
Views
737
superman1
superman1
Back
Top