Rosstour
G.O.A.T.
Not sure but I can see a Wimbledon draw falling apart and he gets someone like Machac or Nishikori or Norrie in the final
Maybe GMP
I think Alcaraz is lost right now, could be a while before he wins another one. Djoko killed him
The Big 3 of Grass--put them in order
- Thread starter Rosstour
- Start date
Not sure but I can see a Wimbledon draw falling apart and he gets someone like Machac or Nishikori or Norrie in the final
Maybe GMP
I think Alcaraz is lost right now, could be a while before he wins another one. Djoko killed him
Rosstour
G.O.A.T.
@nolefam_2024 you were right lol
This poll does not support my default approach that the majority have Sampras and Djoko ahead of Fed on grass
This poll does not support my default approach that the majority have Sampras and Djoko ahead of Fed on grass
That is absurd... Alcaraz is too young to be broken.
He has won 4 slams at an age younger than Fed, Nadal, or Djokovic. He won the channel slam last year. He has also been a year end #1
Only a troll or total fanboy would think Alcaraz is broken.
Racquet_smash
Professional
Prime for prime Federer is easily the most impressive out of the 3 as he had only 1 loss in 7 years and that was loss was a 5 setter against one of the best players of all times.
Sampras did not dominate Wimbledon for such an extended period of time and he lost to Krajicek in 96 which is significantly worse.
Djokovic arguably didn't even dominate Wimbledon in his prime, in 11-16 he had 3 wins which is only 50% of the tournaments played and he lost in 2012 to Federer in 4, in 2013 to Murray in straights and to Querrey in 16.
Rosstour
G.O.A.T.
When was the last time we saw him beat Djoko?
When he got him at RGOG I said "that's trouble" and since then it's been nothing but.
I'm a fan of Carlos and not so much of Djoko so I'm not gloating, believe me. But it seems obvious, objectively
Subway Tennis
G.O.A.T.
Don’t worry too much about Alcaraz. He is like Teflon mentally. He will be back. I wasn’t going to read anything into his AO results but he still nearly squeaked that match against Novak into a fifth with Novak redlining.
I hope we see the little genius back to his best as early as IW. Indian Wells seems to be one of the few non-majors that he cares about lol.
But yes, we are on the same page regarding Novak at Wimbledon. He could be near favourite which is an amazing thing to be able to say about someone at 37 years young.
Rosstour
G.O.A.T.
Knowing how the draws go, I'm guessing he will meet Musetti in the QF or SF and then either Alcaraz or Sinner in the Final, but I think Alcaraz goes out early
Don't care if you are or aren't. Alcaraz was pooped, he'd won the channel slam, and if I am not mistaken beat Novak in 2024 W finals.
Get real over AO loss.... Carlos fell apart after Novak time out. He has an issue once Novak has health drama, just like Cincy
How rich have you gotten over winning the lottery?
Dropshot777
Rookie
The tour just ain’t the same anymore.
Subway Tennis
G.O.A.T.
We need some more big runs from GOATsetti this year. The guy is easily the best player to watch on tour when he is on.
Rosstour
G.O.A.T.
I think Shapo is more enjoyable and more dangerous, but that's about it. Both of them remind me of the Maestro
Now that Wimbledon has night matches, Novak can only contunue to play non day matches. Just what one expects from tennis. A game played in the day...
Subway Tennis
G.O.A.T.
Fair. I love night matches at AO and USO but the way they are implemented at Wimbledon and RG hasnt worked at all imo. Wimbledon grass with that yellow tinge from the lighting looks all wrong, and RG has had terrible scheduling of the night matches so far.
Martin J
Rookie
I often change my mind about who has the top spot when it comes to achievements or greatness at Wimbledon (sometimes it's Fed, sometimes Pete), but it's always good to see a genuine love for Petros. Sheriff would be proud of you, sir.
TheGoldenEra1990’s
Hall of Fame
It’s close but
1. Sampras slightly
2. Federer
3. Djokovic
Djokers grass level doesn’t match Fed and Pete’s. I prefer Pete slightly over Fed because he was unbeaten in finals and won 7 in 8 years. One less Wimbledon though. I also think his grass competition was a little better than Feds. Nadal was great in that short period as was Roddick but doesn’t quite matchup up to Becker, Goran, Agassi, Rafter Not quite. Fed gets points thought for longevity on grass. No doubt.
but I also think Pete’s game was just tailor made for Grass. Peak level I believe Pete’s game was higher than Feds IMO. Slightly
I have no problem with anyone putting Fed above Pete. I witnessed both of their peaks and primes on grass and I just think Pete was better. prime for prime and peak for peak
The only force I have seen that was better than Pete’s peak grass level was Nadal’s clay level
But we don’t have a Time Machine Not to mention it’s kind of pointless to compare because by 2001 or 2002 they start sodding grass to space to make it much slower. It was a different grass in the 90’s. You really had to get low and have crazy reflexes back then
I’m not even sure I would put Djoker at the three spot either. Becker was superior on grass IMO. So was Borg really
1. Sampras slightly
2. Federer
3. Djokovic
Djokers grass level doesn’t match Fed and Pete’s. I prefer Pete slightly over Fed because he was unbeaten in finals and won 7 in 8 years. One less Wimbledon though. I also think his grass competition was a little better than Feds. Nadal was great in that short period as was Roddick but doesn’t quite matchup up to Becker, Goran, Agassi, Rafter Not quite. Fed gets points thought for longevity on grass. No doubt.
but I also think Pete’s game was just tailor made for Grass. Peak level I believe Pete’s game was higher than Feds IMO. Slightly
I have no problem with anyone putting Fed above Pete. I witnessed both of their peaks and primes on grass and I just think Pete was better. prime for prime and peak for peak
The only force I have seen that was better than Pete’s peak grass level was Nadal’s clay level
But we don’t have a Time Machine Not to mention it’s kind of pointless to compare because by 2001 or 2002 they start sodding grass to space to make it much slower. It was a different grass in the 90’s. You really had to get low and have crazy reflexes back then
I’m not even sure I would put Djoker at the three spot either. Becker was superior on grass IMO. So was Borg really
Last edited:
Racquet_smash
Professional
Borg and McEnroe would be my #3 and #4
Grass was slow and ball stays shoulder high in 2008 Wimbledon. Federer's style suits better on fast and ball at the knee high striking zone, and despite the conditions was unfavorable for Federer in 2008, it took Nadal's herculean effort to barely edge Federer in the 5th set. The BBC found out that Federer's 126 mph serve in 2008 was 9 mph hour slower, after the bounce, than the 2003 serve, or 20% slower. The ball also bounces perhaps a foot higher.
Pro tennis is a game of inches, a slight change can make a different between winning and losing. As great as Sampras was, I don't think he can win Wimbledon 2008 and onward when the grass was playing like green clay.
TheFifthSet
Legend
30's were ancient from approximately the mid '70s to the mid 2000's.
Before and after, players still primed/peaked in their early to late 20's but the difference wasn't quite as vast, assuming passable health. Equipment/tour stability (latter is more of a factor from '07-present) made it harder for younger players to break through/exploit their peers' comparative late-life adjustments to new technology like graphite and poly.
Where there's more variety and equipment shake-ups, there is less long-term dominance. This becomes increasingly clearer the closer one looks. It was only during that roughly 30 year span that tennis was a DISTINCTLY young man's sport (almost all sports are "young man sports", but I'm relativizing here).
The period you're referencing was one of the most longevous in tennis history for top players, fwiw. Rosewall, Laver and Gonzales among others enjoyed very good/great longevity.
Last edited:
Rosstour
G.O.A.T.
Grass was slow and ball stays shoulder high in 2008 Wimbledon. Federer's style suits better on fast and ball at the knee high striking zone, and despite the conditions was unfavorable for Federer in 2008, it took Nadal's herculean effort to barely edge Federer in the 5th set. The BBC found out that Federer's 126 mph serve in 2008 was 9 mph hour slower, after the bounce, than the 2003 serve, or 20% slower. The ball also bounces perhaps a foot higher.
Pro tennis is a game of inches, a slight change can make a different between winning and losing. As great as Sampras was, I don't think he can win Wimbledon 2008 and onward when the grass was playing like green clay.
I knew someone would post this graphic. Couldn't be bothered to look for it myself. Thank you, lol
Nadal and Djoko (and Murray) came along just at the right time to pile up multiple Slams on grass. Clearly they were the best of the field outside of the guy whose game would have absolutely feasted on the old grass.
Roger beat Pete on fast grass, beat Rafa and Djoko and Murray on slow grass. If they don't change the surface speed in the mid 2000s, he has 10+ titles there.
Drob
Hall of Fame
Laver-Sampras-Gonzalez
Rosstour
G.O.A.T.
I grouped these three together bc they overlapped and can be almost directly compared. These three guys basically ruled Centre Court from 1993 til now, winning 22 of 30 titles there until Carlos broke the triopoly.
Harder to compare guys that never played each other and played in vastly different eras re equipment and training/nutrition/etc.
Tennfan123
Legend
Sampras >>> Federer >>>>>>>>>Djokovic
zagor
Bionic Poster
They're not in the same class of beneficiaries here. Nadal has struggled far more in the 1st week of Wimbledon and in faster conditions in general than Novak has, it's not even close.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Fed actually struggled for the majority of the 2008, It was a part of his prime but really nowhere near his best year. He also went to that final on the back of meeting Nadal 3 times in a row on clay.
Comparing him to Pete it's certainly not worse than going down in straights to Krajicek like he did and Fed is overall 3-1 against Nadal at Wimbledon (very likely would have been 4-1 if Nadal didn't duck him in 2017).
GoatNo1
Hall of Fame
based on accomplishments it is very true! and, as said, in the hardest competition as well.False!
HC
slams - no1
slam Fs - no1
WTF - no1
masters - no1
big titles - no1
W% at slams - no1
W% overall - no1
CC
slams - no 3-6
slam Fs - no 2-3
masters - no2
big titles - no2
slam W% - no3
overall W% - no4
GC
slams - no 2-3 (no W20*)
slam Fs - no2
big titles - no3
slam W% - no2
overall W% - no3
EDIT
HC (indoors)
WTF - 7 no1
paris - 7 no1
big titles - 14 no1
Last edited:
zagor
Bionic Poster
He won 7 Wimbledons, 4 of them in a row. Covid year 2020 very likely robbed him of 8 Wimbledons and 5 in a row. That's continued excellence on the grasscourt.
Putting Fed and Pete over him is fine of course, however acting like Novak's some noob on grass who was extremely lucky to win his titles is nonsense.
GoatNo1
Hall of Fame
yes, despite W20* no1e has:
same Ws titles as sampras (only fed ahead)
more W Fs than sampras (only fed ahead)
better W% at W than fed (only sampras ahead)
EDIT
+ 3-1 in h2h, 3-0 in finals at W vs fed!
Last edited:
NatF
Bionic Poster
It's totally legitimate to highly value peaks in the GOAT debate. Pretty much every sport does that...
Hitman
Bionic Poster
While I agree with some of your points, and yes, they are fair and valid, here's the thing.
We keep hearing here over and over that physical peak is in your 20s, that testosterone and all the other good things peak in your 20s and then decline. You are addressing the wear and tear, yes, but biology is biology, and Laver, according to the Djokovic detractors was past his athlete peak by that age, and while the game might not have been as physical, it is offset by the fact they also didn't have the advancements in modern science and nutrition and recovery. And lets not forget, tennis wasn't as global as it is now.
If they are all playing into their 30s, then Laver was winning his CYGS against other players who were also passed their physical peaks. Biology doesn't change, right? Where are the physical peak players we constantly hear Djokovic haters bringing up, when it came to Laver winning a CYGS?
The reason why i bring this up is, and which has now been admitted by Djokovic haters is simple....No one cares enough about Laver, it is too far in the past, and these people were mostly invested in the slam race, so Djokovic winning is what bothers, not what Laver did nearly 60 years ago, it also shows that the slam race was the actual metric that many were using to determine who would be the GOAT. You've been here long enough to see how each fanbase gloated about the numbers, I don't need to say it, you know this and have rightfully pointed it out yourself in the past.
And if Laver can do it with the game not being as physical, why cannot modern medicine and science and nutrition, the most elite training and recovering systems that have ever been seen by mankind, not show a different path to achieving elite level success, especially if you are genetically gifted? I mean, how many people are able to show the flexibility and court coverage Djokovic still shows? Dude can run into splits and still hit massive passing shots past top players.
Has Djokovic aged, yes, of course he has. But how is he offsetting it, so he can peak for big events? By playing less, keeping his body fresher, optimizing what he has for short periods. But anything he wins is simply down to everyone being bad.
Last edited:
RS
Bionic Poster
Alcaraz saved Fed fans.There will be extraordinary scenes on here if Djokovic equals Roger GOATerer on 8 Wimbledons
I have a feeling there will be some pretty bad behaviour from basically every fanbase
Subway Tennis
G.O.A.T.
Im(moral) Winner
G.O.A.T.
Yes Novak was lucky to win his last 4-6 titles
aliceinpains
Rookie
Joker #1
RaulRamirez
Legend
Hitman
Bionic Poster
Djokovic equaling Federer with 8 Wimbledon titles.
zagor
Bionic Poster
You still have to stay in shape, avoid injuries and maintain a decent level to win slams. All harder to do do in your 30s. He deserves credit for that nonetheless.
Also that still leaves Novak with 3 Wimbledon title runs where he played excellent tennis, 2011, 2015 and 2018.
RaulRamirez
Legend
Yes, and no. Let me try to explain, although I don't know if we have any other sports in common.
In baseball, way back in the day, even before I started following, there were two legendary centerfielders who played in NYC, Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle. (Technically, there was a third great, but not quite at their level.) It is common for some baseball analysts to observe that Mays had the greater career, but Mantle had the higher peak.
But I've never heard it expressed that Mays was greater due to a Career Inflation Era, or imply that career achievements didn't count or count as much beyond a certain arbitrary age.
If the prevailing sentiment of diehard Fedfans was expressed something like, "Novak had the greater career, but Roger's peak (or even prime) was greater", I would agree. But labeling a certain period of time somewhat arbitrarily "Career Inflation Era" gives license to just write off history and achievements. It's disingenuous.
You are too smart not to see and acknowledge that.
Last edited:
ibbi
G.O.A.T.
Federer's longevity on grass, the fact that he won so many non-Wimbledon grass titles while the other two barely have any, and the fact that he's the only one of the three with a real claim to being able to play and succeed on old grass to a comparable level to the modern stuff makes him a pretty easy number 1.
You can quibble over the other two. To me, the margins on grass in Sampras' day were tiny, so that level of dominance on that kind of surface is one of the craziest feats in the history of tennis.
You can quibble over the other two. To me, the margins on grass in Sampras' day were tiny, so that level of dominance on that kind of surface is one of the craziest feats in the history of tennis.
RaulRamirez
Legend
I suppose, but it all seems a bit ludicrous.
My love of tennis far exceeds whichever player has the most titles. I think yours does as well. But yeah, a lot of the fun of any sport is having rooting interests.
I will say that I was delighted that Madison Keys defeated Aryna Sabalenka (who is a rare player that I dislike), but I won't say that this saved tennis. It did make that Sunday a lot sweeter, though.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
I agree.
NatF
Bionic Poster
There's nothing arbitary about the"Career Inflation Era", like I said I started using the term when it was Federer adding to his tally more than the other two. It was simply a tongue and cheek term to describe what I felt was a lack of talent allowing the top players to overachieve somewhat relative to past players and greats. Zverev was one of the main early targets of those comments for example but I had already recognised by May 2018 that the strength of the slam draws were really quite bad and had been for a while.
I think the age stuff is a bit of a strawman as well, it's not that achievements past a certain age don't count - that's ridiculous. It's that players have been overachieving relative to to how they would have performed in basically any other era of the past because there's been a lack of fresh ATG talent.
RS
Bionic Poster
RaulRamirez
Legend
RS
Bionic Poster
It's good Fed kept that. He deserves to keep Wimbledon for the foreseeable future lol
Similar threads
