The Big 3 of Grass--put them in order

[ChrisJR3264]

Djoko -fed - Sampras

 

[Hood_Man]

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.

If you want to discuss then you can start by being honest. I haven't called Djokovic "a noob" anywhere. If the discussion was about his run from 2011 to 2016 I would be - as I have always been - complimentary, but it isn't. It's about the period where next gen talent barely existed, where players like Kevin Anderson were able to reach multiple slam finals.

If you want to respond to the points I've actually made then feel free, but your post is nothing more than a childish whine - no analysis, no thought, just strawmen and putting words in people's mouths.

 

[GabeT]

If you want to discuss then you can start by being honest. I haven't called Djokovic "a noob" anywhere. If the discussion was about his run from 2011 to 2016 I would be - as I have always been - complimentary, but it isn't. It's about the period where next gen talent barely existed, where players like Kevin Anderson were able to reach multiple slam finals.

If you want to respond to the points I've actually made then feel free, but your post is nothing more than a childish whine - no analysis, no thought, just strawmen and putting words in people's mouths.

You realize that if the Big 3 had retired early some of these same players you consider lacking in any talent would have won Wimbledon, some possibly multiple times, and would rightly be considered among the top players in modern tennis history.

 

[nolefam_2024]

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).

No one else has done it better as well. Borg lost to McEnroe in 6th final but like a coward he retired before winning another. Fed won 3 more. Borg is a coward I think.

Now Sampras never went to 5 straight wins and the reason for that is 19 year old very pre prime Federer whose return game was not great.

So Federer is the best even objectively. To say he is now allowed to lose is very insulting to his competition.

 

[helterskelter]

He's 6 years younger than Federer and Nadal has about 1000 years more mileage on his knees.

Could've saved yourself some time there.

If he's as good as Federer on grass than he doesn't lose to a nearly 31 year old Federer in 4 sets in 2012, or lose two finals in straight sets, simple as.

Given that the point of your post is to say that age and injuries matter a lot, you ought to cut Djokovic some slack for the 2024 Wimbledon final defeat. 2013, fair enough.

 

[TMF]

based on accomplishments it is very true! and, as said, in the hordast competition as well.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

Given that the point of your post is to say that age and injuries matter a lot, you ought to cut Djokovic some slack for the 2024 Wimbledon final defeat. 2013, fair enough.

He's comparing him to Fed who didn't lose any Wimbledon finals at straight sets even at old age

 

[Hood_Man]

Given that the point of your post is to say that age and injuries matter a lot, you ought to cut Djokovic some slack for the 2024 Wimbledon final defeat. 2013, fair enough.

I've never had a problem acknowledging age differences, it's the Djokovic fan base that always denied it.

Well, they did until July 2023...

Also Roger never lost a Wimbledon final in straight sets, even with that disadvantage.

 

[Breakpointerer]

In other words, when Djokovic continued to win and the slam record was as good as gone.

There were actually a good chunk of posters who agreed with the 'CIE' being a thing back in early-mid 2018 and then disagreed with it once Djokovic started winning again, so it goes both ways.

 

[nolefam_2024]

There were actually a good chunk of posters who agreed with the 'CIE' being a thing back in early-mid 2018 and then disagreed with it once Djokovic started winning again, so it goes both ways.

Both ways lol. Djokovic was at absolute peak of his powers in 2016 and no Federer no Nadal caused his decline in 2017.

While Nadal and fed were blocked completely by Djokovic and won 6 of the slams once he was out.


So yes Djokovic fans have high claim as always.

 

[nolefam_2024]

When djokovic comes back to his best in 2018 it doesn't matter if the era is weaker because who was going to stop the BOAT? Ncygs and highest points ever

 

[TheFifthSet]

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.

All I was responding to was the notion that a players 30’s were particularly “ancient” back then, nothing further-reaching than that.

 

[nolefam_2024]

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.

There is another thread discussing this. You can check it out.

Dominance ratio does work.

There. That sounds provocative. :D But seriously, I have found huge problem using it, and here is the flaw, in a nutshell... The assumption is that when two players are both winning the same % of points, or the same % of games, they guy who serves better is a better player. He should win more...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

There. That sounds provocative.

But seriously, I have found huge problem using it, and here is the flaw, in a nutshell...

The assumption is that when two players are both winning the same % of points, or the same % of games, they guy who serves better is a better player. He should win more.

This does not work.

Here is the mathematical problem:

When we compare two different players on the same surface who have different playing styles, DR will tell us that the player who serves better is also better even when it is clearly not true.

I carefully tracked clay court seasons for Federer, Nadal and Djokovic from the time any of them starting to win big on clay.

It turns out that Novak won 94.12% of his service games in 2015. I had forgotten that because, as we all know, Novak was not even able to win RG last year.

In 2005 Nadal won 83.97 % of his service games.

HOWEVER:

Novak won 62.30% of his games, Nadal won 65.11%.
Novak won 54.78% of all points, Nadal won 56.73%
Novak was 16/1 for the year, Nadal 50/2. That's a slightly higher % of matches, but by the TINIEST of margins, and I don't think any of us will argue about who was most dominant.

Yet Novak has a higher DR, 1.56 to 1.51.

WHY?

It is because of how dominance is computed, always assuming that the guy who serves better is more dominant. It doesn't matter that player number won more games, more points, more matches, more BPs. If they are close otherwise, the better server will always get the higher rating.

Here is the bottom line:

Agassi had an amazing year on clay in 1999, but because he only won 80% of his service games I don't even have to do the math to tell you that his dominance rating will be way lower than Novak's in 2015.

So using DR the conclusion will always be that when comparing two players from the same year, or from different eras, the better server is the better player.

And that can go terribly wrong....

Now you are giving Sampras who is already far better server than Djokovic fastest grass where serving is even more accentuating and saying the DR is so high. Of course DR is high for him.
Djokovic faced Federer 3 times, Kyrgios, Berrettini and Anderson a total of 6 times his opponent were BIGGER server than him by a mile. The DR may be very near but they were not.

 

[chjtennis]

Sampras - Federer - Borg. Grass was real grass in Borg's time and there were many more players who knew how to play on real grass back in his time. He should be ahead of Nole. I don't know where to put Djokovic, to be honest. McEnroe, Edberg and Becker shouldn't be overlooked, as well as old timers like Laver, Gonzalez, etc.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Sampras - Federer - Borg. Grass was real grass in Borg's time and there were many more players who knew how to play on real grass back in his time. He should be ahead of Nole. I don't know where to put Djokovic, to be honest. McEnroe, Edberg and Becker shouldn't be overlooked.

Wrong completely. Grass is always real. No pomp here. Fed won all in real grass just like djokovic.

 

[chjtennis]

Wrong completely. Grass is always real. No pomp here. Fed won all in real grass just like djokovic.

I can confidently say you are in the wrong on this. No one is allowed to slide that much on grass. Not even Novak.

 

[Third Serve]

IMO if you do an age-by-age comparison I think there aren't too many seasons where Djokovic legit outperformed Fed at Wimbledon.

2001 vs. 2007 (age 20): Fed a bit better because of the Sampras match and because Djokovic in 2007 was injured.
2002 vs. 2008 (21): About equal. Neither was good.
2003 vs. 2009 (22): Fed easily.
2004 vs. 2010 (23): Again, Fed easily.
2005 vs. 2011 (24): Fed by a decent margin.
2006 vs. 2012 (25): Fed easily.
2007 vs. 2013 (26): Fed easily.
2008 vs. 2014 (27): Fed slightly. I can understand giving this to Djokovic.
2009 vs. 2015 (28): Djokovic slightly. I can understand giving this to Fed.
2010 vs. 2016 (29): Fed.
2011 vs. 2017 (30): Fed.
2012 vs. 2018 (31): Fed.
2013 vs. 2019 (32): Djokovic easily.
2014 vs. 2020 (33): N/A but I have a hard time seeing how Fed wouldn't win this considering Novak's form in surrounding years.
2015 vs. 2021 (34): Fed. Djokovic wasn't spectacular in this one IMO.
2016 vs. 2022 (35): Djokovic due to Fed's injury.
2017 vs. 2023 (36): Fed by a decent margin.
2018 vs. 2024 (37): Djokovic slightly, again due to Fed's injury.
2019 vs. 2025 (38): ???

After age 30, Djokovic gets more competitive with Fed, owing to his extraordinary longevity. But age for age, I think Fed clearly performed greater across their careers. It's not like an insane blowout or anything but it's still a pretty comfortable advantage.

 

[Third Serve]

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.

Wouldn't the type of serve change the mph too?

 

[Midaso240]

Federer, Sampras, Djokovic. I don't see Djokovic as in the same class as the other two tbh, he was extremely lucky to accumulate several of his titles at a time when there was a very weak field

 

[Midaso240]

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.

I still think Djokovic would need a little luck to win it, because of his ranking he's going to most likely need to beat 2 (or even 3) of the top 3 players in the world to win. He showed at AO he can beat one of them, but he was never going to beat Zverev/Sinner back to back if he didn't get injured.

 

[zagor]

If you want to discuss then you can start by being honest. I haven't called Djokovic "a noob" anywhere. If the discussion was about his run from 2011 to 2016 I would be - as I have always been - complimentary, but it isn't. It's about the period where next gen talent barely existed, where players like Kevin Anderson were able to reach multiple slam finals.

If you want to respond to the points I've actually made then feel free, but your post is nothing more than a childish whine - no analysis, no thought, just strawmen and putting words in people's mouths.

Okay to respond to you points.

You feel Novak owes most of his Wimbledon titles to a transitional period from 2016 to 2023 (or the present). My point is that it remains a considerable task to stay healthy and maintain a Slam-winning level in your 30s, no matter the era. Novak deserves credit for managing to do so. It's incredibly hard and rare to see, the vast majority of players just breaks down once they reach that stage in their career while Novak was making final after final, playing every slam.

Another point is that evaluating any career based on arbitrary cut-off periods glosses over individual examples that stand out as exceptions in those periods. A case in point is Wimbledon 2018, where Novak beat Nadal in the SF in a match that was one of the best I've seen in recent tennis history. Facing that version of Nadal on modern grass and beating him is IMO definitely more impressive than handling a 2005 Roddick (whose forehand no longer had any bite) or players like Jim Courier and freakin Cedric Pioline (who was really just Pete’s personal punching bag, I’ve followed tennis in the '90s and watched their matches).

Another thing is that you seem to have penalized Novak for losing two finals to a young player in Carlos, that youngster is an all-time great in the making. If anything, Novak pushing him so hard in the 2023 final, despite his advanced age and the mileage on his body, speaks to his prowess on grass ( the same can be said for Federer for his 2019 Wimbledon run BTW, despite the 40-15 meme). Regarding the 2024 final, Novak should really be given some slack, considering he had surgery for an injury that forced him out of the FO.

My general point about TTW's stance when evaluating Novak’s Wimbledon achievements is that it's always far too polarized. One group acts as though he shouldn’t even be compared to other grass-court legends because they’re so out of his league, while another group argues that he’s better than Federer on grass because he beat him three times when Federer was in his 30s. The truth, as usual, lies somewhere in the middle.

 

[zagor]

No one else has done it better as well. Borg lost to McEnroe in 6th final but like a coward he retired before winning another. Fed won 3 more. Borg is a coward I think.

Now Sampras never went to 5 straight wins and the reason for that is 19 year old very pre prime Federer whose return game was not great.

So Federer is the best even objectively. To say he is now allowed to lose is very insulting to his competition.

Wouldn't call Borg a coward. It was a complex situation and he really didn't have the treatment today's stars do. Probably would have stayed in the game if he did.

Agree with the rest.

 

[zagor]

Wouldn't the type of serve change the mph too?

This is the other par of that graph:

Picture TMF posted was speed after the bounce.

I mean your point still stands I guess but really, I think it's very obvious grass was slowed down in those years. There was a concentrated effort from Wimbledon for years to do so.

Fed came in on every 1st serve in 2003, there's no way in hell he would have been able to do that against nearly anybody in the draw in 2008 (not just Nadal), conditions just weren't the same anymore.

 

[TheFifthSet]

IMO if you do an age-by-age comparison I think there aren't too many seasons where Djokovic legit outperformed Fed at Wimbledon.

2001 vs. 2007 (age 20): Fed a bit better because of the Sampras match and because Djokovic in 2007 was injured.
2002 vs. 2008 (21): About equal. Neither was good.
2003 vs. 2009 (22): Fed easily.
2004 vs. 2010 (23): Again, Fed easily.
2005 vs. 2011 (24): Fed by a decent margin.
2006 vs. 2012 (25): Fed easily.
2007 vs. 2013 (26): Fed easily.
2008 vs. 2014 (27): Fed slightly. I can understand giving this to Djokovic.
2009 vs. 2015 (28): Djokovic slightly. I can understand giving this to Fed.
2010 vs. 2016 (29): Fed.
2011 vs. 2017 (30): Fed.
2012 vs. 2018 (31): Fed.
2013 vs. 2019 (32): Djokovic easily.
2014 vs. 2020 (33): N/A but I have a hard time seeing how Fed wouldn't win this considering Novak's form in surrounding years.
2015 vs. 2021 (34): Fed. Djokovic wasn't spectacular in this one IMO.
2016 vs. 2022 (35): Djokovic due to Fed's injury.
2017 vs. 2023 (36): Fed by a decent margin.
2018 vs. 2024 (37): Djokovic slightly, again due to Fed's injury.
2019 vs. 2025 (38): ???

After age 30, Djokovic gets more competitive with Fed, owing to his extraordinary longevity. But age for age, I think Fed clearly performed greater across their careers. It's not like an insane blowout or anything but it's still a pretty comfortable advantage.

Not to pull a mets but if anything you’re being exceedingly fair/kind here. Age 28 and 37 are toss-up’s at best imo.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Borg lost to McEnroe in 6th final but like a coward he retired before winning another. Fed won 3 more. Borg is a coward I think.

Lmao. It’s as if this guy is a some kind of psyop intended to get people to stop posting here. Skillful stuff.

 

[adil1972]

Chris Evert cites Serena Williams' father Richard as positive example of tennis parents today, laments not having that help in her generation

WTA legend Chris Evert recently discussed the challenges she faced while building her professional tennis career.

www.sportskeeda.com

Is tennis only sports which has bad parents problem or is it also happens in other sports also. If yes, plz give example

Thankyou so much in advance.

 

[Barton]

Djokovic is one of the greatest champions of Wimbledon. Below Federer and Sampras career-wise and for peak/prime and likely also below Borg and McEnroe for peak/prime, but still he dominated Wimbledon winning it 4 times in a row. Could have been 5 times in a row if 2020 Wimbledon didn't get cancelled. Djokovic lost a great opportunity there which is not talked about enough.

 

[RS]

Okay to respond to you points.

You feel Novak owes most of his Wimbledon titles to a transitional period from 2016 to 2023 (or the present). My point is that it remains a considerable task to stay healthy and maintain a Slam-winning level in your 30s, no matter the era. Novak deserves credit for managing to do so. It's incredibly hard and rare to see, the vast majority of players just breaks down once they reach that stage in their career while Novak was making final after final, playing every slam.

Another point is that evaluating any career based on arbitrary cut-off periods glosses over individual examples that stand out as exceptions in those periods. A case in point is Wimbledon 2018, where Novak beat Nadal in the SF in a match that was one of the best I've seen in recent tennis history. Facing that version of Nadal on modern grass and beating him is IMO definitely more impressive than handling a 2005 Roddick (whose forehand no longer had any bite) or players like Jim Courier and freakin Cedric Pioline (who was really just Pete’s personal punching bag, I’ve followed tennis in the '90s and watched their matches).

Another thing is that you seem to have penalized Novak for losing two finals to a young player in Carlos, that youngster is an all-time great in the making. If anything, Novak pushing him so hard in the 2023 final, despite his advanced age and the mileage on his body, speaks to his prowess on grass ( the same can be said for Federer for his 2019 Wimbledon run BTW, despite the 40-15 meme). Regarding the 2024 final, Novak should really be given some slack, considering he had surgery for an injury that forced him out of the FO.

My general point about TTW's stance when evaluating Novak’s Wimbledon achievements is that it's always far too polarized. One group acts as though he shouldn’t even be compared to other grass-court legends because they’re so out of his league, while another group argues that he’s better than Federer on grass because he beat him three times when Federer was in his 30s. The truth, as usual, lies somewhere in the middle.

Do you believe in the Career Inflation era and Asterisk era?

 

[Barton]

Do you believe in the Career Inflation era and Asterisk era?

I had a drink with him last night. We think that you all are clueless about tennis.

 

[RS]

I had a drink with him last night. We think that you all are clueless about tennis.

I am.

 

[RS]

I had a drink with him last night. We think that you all are clueless about tennis.

I think you believe in it a bit.

 

[RS]

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...

Target Djokovic in the masters and the USO now.

 

[jl809]

Target Djokovic in the masters and the USO now.

USO is too easy imo, when your two most celebrated wins involve relying on post prime Federer biblically choking and you lost to Murray and Nishikori in your prime, you’re not someone who can be taken seriously against prime Fed or even the 90s guys. But hey 4 USOs is a reflection of having a nice high floor for long enough to get Nishikori, DelPo, Shelton and Midvedev. Good bit of inflation (plus there’s no way he wins the 2018 USO with Nadal’s draw, so that was another nice freebie off the back of the 2018 Wimbledon draw)

Masters, tbh, you won’t hear me taking pot shots at Djoker for - especially the way he won MC and Rome beating decent versions of prime Nadal - except for Cincinnati which he was never going to win in a million years until Federer declined massively after IW 2018. He basically just pulled a classic “hang around long enough” job to win that one. But overall he deserves the DCM much more than Fedal, who both sucked at Paris

 

[RS]

USO is too easy imo, when your two most celebrated wins involve relying on post prime Federer biblically choking and you lost to Murray and Nishikori in your prime, you’re not someone who can be taken seriously against prime Fed or even the 90s guys. But hey 4 USOs is a reflection of having a nice high floor for long enough to get Nishikori, DelPo, Shelton and Midvedev. Good bit of inflation (plus there’s no way he wins the 2018 USO with Nadal’s draw, so that was another nice freebie off the back of the 2018 Wimbledon draw)

Masters, tbh, you won’t hear me taking pot shots at Djoker for - especially the way he won MC and Rome beating decent versions of prime Nadal - except for Cincinnati which he was never going to win in a million years until Federer declined massively after IW 2018. He basically just pulled a classic “hang around long enough” job to win that one. But overall he deserves the DCM much more than Fedal, who both sucked at Paris

Yeah I was reaching with masters. Holy hell you went in deep with the USO.

 

[Third Serve]

Not to pull a mets but if anything you’re being exceedingly fair/kind here. Age 28 and 37 are toss-up’s at best imo.

Yeah I am

 

[Third Serve]

This is the other par of that graph:

Picture TMF posted was speed after the bounce.

I mean your point still stands I guess but really, I think it's very obvious grass was slowed down in those years. There was a concentrated effort from Wimbledon for years to do so.

Fed came in on every 1st serve in 2003, there's no way in hell he would have been able to do that against nearly anybody in the draw in 2008 (not just Nadal), conditions just weren't the same anymore.

I do think grass slowed down over the years just from my eye test (and I think the increased prevalence of S&V in the 2003 tournament is better evidence of this), but a single serve wouldn’t really be good proof of that. If Fed hit more of a kick serve at the same mph coming off the racket it would be slower bouncing off the ground. I feel like I’d need to see the serve itself.

 

[NatF]

USO is too easy imo, when your two most celebrated wins involve relying on post prime Federer biblically choking and you lost to Murray and Nishikori in your prime, you’re not someone who can be taken seriously against prime Fed or even the 90s guys. But hey 4 USOs is a reflection of having a nice high floor for long enough to get Nishikori, DelPo, Shelton and Midvedev. Good bit of inflation (plus there’s no way he wins the 2018 USO with Nadal’s draw, so that was another nice freebie off the back of the 2018 Wimbledon draw)

Masters, tbh, you won’t hear me taking pot shots at Djoker for - especially the way he won MC and Rome beating decent versions of prime Nadal - except for Cincinnati which he was never going to win in a million years until Federer declined massively after IW 2018. He basically just pulled a classic “hang around long enough” job to win that one. But overall he deserves the DCM much more than Fedal, who both sucked at Paris

Let's not put Federer and Nadal in the same category in Paris lol. Federer didn't play it once in 2004-2006 either.

I do think grass slowed down over the years just from my eye test (and I think the increased prevalence of S&V in the 2003 tournament is better evidence of this), but a single serve wouldn’t really be good proof of that. If Fed hit more of a kick serve at the same mph coming off the racket it would be slower bouncing off the ground. I feel like I’d need to see the serve itself.

I guess the BBC don't know what a kick serve is?

 

[abmk]

Federer , Sampras, Borg

 

[Megafanoftennis100]

Sinner-Federer-Sampras

 

[sliceroni]

Sampras is “fast-grass” king, that will never change.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Sampras is “fast-grass” king, that will never change.

No reason for that to change as there is no fast grass at all. Just like there is no carpet

 

[Hitman]

Sampras is “fast-grass” king, that will never change.

True.

Grass should be split into two, the way some like to split HC into two.

Fast grass, it has to be between Sampras, Becker, McEnroe and Borg.

I'd say Sampras, Borg, then a toss up between McEnroe and Becker.

 

[TMF]

Wouldn't the type of serve change the mph too?

The BBC chose 2 serves, one in 2003 and in 2008 at the same speed(126mph) on a similar flight. They said after the bounce that made a drastic difference, with 2008 ball traveling 9 miles slower and bounce 1 foot higher

 

[nolefam_2024]

True.

Grass should be split into two, the way some like to split HC into two.

Fast grass, it has to be between Sampras, Becker, McEnroe and Borg.

I'd say Sampras, Borg, then a toss up between McEnroe and Becker.

Agreed and just because grass changed doesn't mean tennis history stopped there. Wimbledon is still Wimbledon.

 

[Third Serve]

I guess the BBC don't know what a kick serve is?

Tennis stat keeping and analytics is pretty abysmal. I wouldn’t be surprised if that wasn’t taken into account.

 

[zagor]

Do you believe in the Career Inflation era and Asterisk era?

To a certain degree I do. However as stated previously I also believe that maintaining slam winning form and fitness in 30s is extremely hard and deserving of respect, and that a guy who won 7 Wimbledons (4 in a row at one point) is a tough customer on grass.

I don't really like to subscribe to a black and white view in tennis or generally speaking. Several things can be true at once.

 

[RS]

To a certain degree I do. However as stated previously I also believe that maintaining slam winning form and fitness in 30s is extremely hard and deserving of respect, and that a guy who won 7 Wimbledons (4 in a row at one point) is a tough customer on grass.

I don't really like to subscribe to a black and white view in tennis or generally speaking. Several things can be true at once.

Same. I believe in it a little but it's taken overboard by posters here.

 

[NatF]

Tennis stat keeping and analytics is pretty abysmal. I wouldn’t be surprised if that wasn’t taken into account.

I don't think it should be the default assumption. The commies themselves are often former players.

 

[zagor]

Let's not put Federer and Nadal in the same category in Paris lol. Federer didn't play it once in 2004-2006 either.


I guess the BBC don't know what a kick serve is?

126 mph kick serve?

Regarding Paris, yeah Fed was generally injury prone or just plain exhausted in his peak years come indoor season. Reason being that he was playing a ton of matches (including some smaller tourneys, the calendar was just different back then) and because he was never as injury-free as advertised. Dude has had his fair share of injuries, many of them in very inopportune moments.

 

[zagor]

True.

Grass should be split into two, the way some like to split HC into two.

Fast grass, it has to be between Sampras, Becker, McEnroe and Borg.

I'd say Sampras, Borg, then a toss up between McEnroe and Becker.

Honestly Fed would have also been a terror on fast grass as soon as he matured. Considering his strengths and toolset.

We caught a glimpse of that in 2001 match with Sampras, Fed really deserves more credit for that win. It was a quality match.