The Kings of Grass

BeatlesFan

Talk Tennis Guru
The term “King” has no plural in this context. There’s no such thing as dual Kings or co-rulers. On that basis, it can’t even be argued who the king of grass is. He has 8 Wimbledons and 19 grass titles. Nobody else is close to those numbers.
 
Last edited:

Service Ace

Hall of Fame
Indeed, he chokes against George Bastl instead. But no idea what he does 7 years later (equivalent to Federer’s 2019).
Good point. Federer would never lose that early in Wimbledon to a mug like Sergiy Stakhovsky, much less choke away championships points with his legacy on the line as if he was some all time Choke King like Coria.
 

ChrisRF

Hall of Fame
Good point. Federer would never lose that early in Wimbledon to a mug like Sergiy Stakhovsky, much less choke away championships points with his legacy on the line as if he was some all time Choke King like Coria.
The Stakhosvky thing is valid, but it was only one episode and contrary to Sampras he came back to reach many more finals after it.

The match points are no argument at all, because coming that close to winning is just what it is: One very small detail less great than winning. Strangely some people act as if it's worse than losing in the 1st round or even being retired for a long time. I doubt that Sampras would have the chance to choke against Djokovic with modern conditions/equipments because he wouldn’t make it Close.
 

Sunny Ali

Hall of Fame
The Stakhosvky thing is valid, but it was only one episode and contrary to Sampras he came back to reach many more finals after it.

The match points are no argument at all, because coming that close to winning is just what it is: One very small detail less great than winning. Strangely some people act as if it's worse than losing in the 1st round or even being retired for a long time. I doubt that Sampras would have the chance to choke against Djokovic with modern conditions/equipments because he wouldn’t make it Close.
You just can't use the Bastl argument against Sampras because every top player loses at some point. So I fully expected the Stakhovsky retort :)

If the 'King' is the one with most titles, Federer it is. No argument there. But for me, the King is not the one with most titles. The reason most neutral fans lean toward Sampras being King on Grass is because in addtition to his fantastic accomplishments there, he was peerless. The only blemishes are occasional losses but if Nadal can be beaten at the FO in his prime (Soderling), it's hardly surprising that Sampras in his prime can be beaten on grass! However, nobody in his right mind could claim Federer is peerless on grass considering he is getting outright dominated by Djokovic time and again at Wimbledon. How can anyone nominate him King?

The age factor is used by Federer fans in his defense but Nadal was already beating Federer in his prime before Djokovic came along.
 

Enceladus

Hall of Fame
The term “King” has no plural. There’s no such thing as dual Kings or co-rulers. On that basis, it can’t even be argued who the king of grass is. He has 8 Wimbledons and 19 grass titles. Nobody else is close to those numbers.
You're wrong, a lot. In the past, were the reigns of two co-kings or monarchs were of a different title. E.g. in ancient Sparta. Or in England in the years 1689-1694, when William III of Orange and Marie II of Stuart ruled together.

The grass has several kings and Djoker is among them.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
The Stakhosvky thing is valid, but it was only one episode and contrary to Sampras he came back to reach many more finals after it.

The match points are no argument at all, because coming that close to winning is just what it is: One very small detail less great than winning. Strangely some people act as if it's worse than losing in the 1st round or even being retired for a long time. I doubt that Sampras would have the chance to choke against Djokovic with modern conditions/equipments because he wouldn’t make it Close.
Honestly, I'd rather he lost to Novak before the CP's like any normal tennis player would.
 

Sunny Ali

Hall of Fame
Sampras had retired before the age at which Federer was first beaten by Djoko at Wimbledon.
Yes that is a fact. That's why I added that before Djokovic became a major force, Federer was beaten by Nadal as well. If that was the only loss, we could write that off. However, he was beaten by Nadal on other surfaces as well making it difficult to write that loss off as an anomaly.

Anyways, I don't have a problem with you guys considering Federer the King of grass. For me it's Sampras, that's all.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Yes that is a fact. That's why I added that before Djokovic became a major force, Federer was beaten by Nadal as well. If that was the only loss, we could write that off. However, he was beaten by Nadal on other surfaces as well making it difficult to write that loss off as an anomaly.

Anyways, I don't have a problem with you guys considering Federer the King of grass. For me it's Sampras, that's all.
Losing to Krajicek in straights in the QF is somehow far better than losing to Nadal in the final? Lol nah.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
Losing to Krajicek in straights in the QF is somehow far better than losing to Nadal in the final? Lol nah.
Anybody probably would have lost to Krajicek that day. Probably Federer and Djokovic included. Sampras didn't do much wrong but was just out clutched. He even held serve much easier in that match but Krajicek was too good when it mattered. Krajickek lost one set in that tournament and rolled over Stich and Sampras, both former champions.
 

ForehandRF

Hall of Fame
Losing to Krajicek in straights in the QF is somehow far better than losing to Nadal in the final? Lol nah.
Add to that the fact that Fed lost 9-7 in the 5th(he never lost in straights anyway since he won Wimby for the first time).
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Anybody probably would have lost to Krajicek that day. Probably Federer and Djokovic included. Sampras didn't do much wrong but was just out clutched. He even held serve much easier in that match but Krajicek was too good when it mattered. Krajickek lost one set in that tournament and rolled over Stich and Sampras, both former champions.
Krajicek was a beast for sure, still massive double standards.

Pete took longer to get going on grass, I don't see Federer losing in straights - or Pete if that's a final. Either way I don't see how that's a better loss than losing in 5 to Nadal...
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Federer is the undisputed KING of Grass and his achievements speak volumes.

  • 8 Wimbledon titles - 1st
  • 12 Wimbledon finals - 1st
  • 19 Grass titles - 1st
  • 65-match grass court winning streak - 1st
  • 1 Wimbledon title without dropping a set - shared with Borg(1976)
  • 5 Consecutive Wimbledon titles - shared with Borg(1976-80)
  • 187 grass court match victories - 1st
  • 13 consecutive grass court finals reached - 1st
  • 36 consecutive sets on grass court won - 1st
  • 187 grass court match victories - 1st
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
Krajicek was a beast for sure, still massive double standards.

Pete took longer to get going on grass, I don't see Federer losing in straights - or Pete if that's a final. Either way I don't see how that's a better loss than losing in 5 to Nadal...
Not much you can do when an opponent is goating like that. Cash bludgeoned Wilander, Connors and Lendl in his Wimbledon run all in straight sets. It happens. I don't think that's an embarrassing loss really and neither is Federer losing to Nadal.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Not much you can do when an opponent is goating. Cash bludgeoned Wilander, Connors and Lendl in his Wimbledon run all in straight sets. It happens. I don't think that's an embarrassing loss really and neither is Federer losing to Nadal.
Didn't say it was embarrassing.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Well I should say I don't think it's a bad loss.
My point was that saying Fed can't be king on grass because he got knocked out by Nadal is next level ironic when Sampras got knocked down himself in an earlier round and by a worse score. I'm not commenting on anything other than the double standards here.

I think a case can be made for Sampras as the BOAT on grass but the argument I responded to wasn't it...
 
C

Chadalina

Guest
Sampras

No King chokes the way Federer has against his two greatest rivals on his "best" surface.
:-D:-D:-D:-D

Sampras missed two easy volleys and dumped his trademark overhead into the net in the final game of their match at wimbledon...
 

weakera

Legend
Rosol, Darcis, Brown, Muller vs Stakhovsky and Fed's 5 years older.
[/QUOTE
No one claims Nadal is King of Wimbledon. I couldn't say Nadal was king of Roland Garros with a straight face if he lost to Stakhovsky, Berdych, Tsonga up 2-0, Anderson up 2-0, 4 finals losses to his two rivals including in his prime, 40-15, Raomug up 2-1.

Some king :sneaky:
 
Top