The Kings of Grass

Marfrilau

Rookie
I have to put Sampras ahead of Federer who had one detractor (Krajicek) in '96 while Federer made a lot more finals and has a lot more losses! Dropping 3 finals to a player (Nole '14, '15, & '19) earns him a bit of a demerit; sorry! :unsure:
Yes. The great logic of not playing makes you better than playing and losing after winning (in these cases in the final no less). A person who have never played tennis must be the GOAT with this kind of logic. Federer did infinitely better than Sampras by losing in those finals. Sampras didn't even play at the same age. That should never be considered better.
 

Fiero425

Hall of Fame
Maybe it's you that is avoiding reasoning :unsure:
That's always possible! Who's to say who's less rational or more delusional! I'll still elevate someone winning over losing just about every time! Courage means little in comparison to results in the history of most things I can think of OTOH! How much credit is Nole getting for making FO finals, but coming up short to Nadal? :unsure:
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
The probem is that he should be 7 - 0 against a youngling that is far from mature off clay
Give me a break. Nadal should currently be 7-0 too against retirerer.

I guess you've never heard of young ATG beating older ATG.

Nadal won 3 HC masters and reached 2 Wimb finals + 2 YEC SF. He wasn't a toddler off clay.
 

ForehandRF

Hall of Fame
Yes. The great logic of not playing makes you better than playing and losing after winning (in these cases in the final no less). A person who have never played tennis must be the GOAT with this kind of logic. Federer did infinitely better than Sampras by losing in those finals. Sampras didn't even play at the same age. That should never be considered better.
People are penalizing Fed too much for the record in finals.Judging that way, Federer is better at the AO (6-1) and USO (5-2) than at Wimby (8-4).Who cares about the number of titles and finals overall, he must be better at the AO and the USO because he didn't lost nearly as much in finals.
 

arvind13

Professional
Otha koodi-ka-baal ... but Federer at 38 is clean? LOL :-D
hey all three are suspicious. but for federer the only suspicious thing is he is still in top 3 at 38 and contending for slams. for those other two they play an extremely physical game. and the fact that nadal is able to physically grind down opponents ten years younger than him on clay courts makes it way more suspicious than federer playing well at 38 by shortening up points and coming to net more. but make no mistake federer is also suspicious.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
hey all three are suspicious. but for federer the only suspicious thing is he is still in top 3 at 38 and contending for slams. for those other two they play an extremely physical game. and the fact that nadal is able to physically grind down opponents ten years younger than him on clay courts makes it way more suspicious than federer playing well at 38 by shortening up points and coming to net more. but make no mistake federer is also suspicious.
Let's be honest: if Federer is suspicious, so are Nadal and Djokovic. It is that simple. Otherwise, they woukdn't be able to compete with each other.

It's basically an even playing field so I don't cate too much about that. Either they are all clean or none of them are.
 

Pheasant

Hall of Fame
People are penalizing Fed too much for the record in finals.Judging that way, Federer is better at the AO (6-1) and USO (5-2) than at Wimby (8-4).Who cares about the number of titles and finals overall, he must be better at the AO and the USO because he didn't lost nearly as much in finals.
You are so right here. Fed’s great results on grass at such an old age should boost his credentials, not destroy them. He’s the oldest Wimbledon champ in the Open Era.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
So you don't believe in GOATS but go out of your way to convince everyone how much better Federer is and you don't like trolling but you sarcastically troll almost every thread... :unsure:

BTW who are you quoting? Yourself? Your imaginary friend? lol - Whoever you are quoting, they might need to do a grammar check next time ;)
I am into discussing tennis, and Federer is a damn fine player, so "convincing everyone how much better Federer is" is pretty relevant to the truth (although I am not sure that you actually have the capacity to estimate what and when I am saying). On the other hand your contribution to the tennis debate outside of trolling is 0 (zero). You couldn't even stop yourself at taking cheap shots at other posters who have nothing to do with your post or even apparently you have blocked. That is how low your level here is.

 

Sport

Legend
I have to put Sampras ahead of Federer who had one detractor (Krajicek) in '96 while Federer made a lot more finals and has a lot more losses! Dropping 3 finals to a player (Nole '14, '15, & '19) earns him a bit of a demerit; sorry! :unsure:
It is true that Federer lost 4 WB finals and Sampras 0. And it may be tempting to conclude that "Sampras was more dominant and therefore the superior grass player". However, a closer analysis reveals that that line of reasoning is incorrect.

Sampras did not face Murray, Nadal and Djokovic, which are stronger players on grass than anything Pete faced. Therefore, we cannot assume that Sampras would lose 0 WB finals against the players Federer faced.

All we know is 8 > 7. Therefore Federer is better on grass than Sampras. Not by a giant margin, but still enough.
 

tonylg

Hall of Fame
It is true that Federer lost 4 WB finals and Sampras 0. And it may be tempting to conclude that "Sampras was more dominant and therefore the superior grass player". However, a closer analysis reveals that that line of reasoning is incorrect.

Sampras did not face Murray, Nadal and Djokovic, which are stronger players on grass than anything Pete faced. Therefore, we cannot assume that Sampras would lose 0 WB finals against the players Federer faced.

All we know is 8 > 7. Therefore Federer is better on grass than Sampras. Not by a giant margin, but still enough.
Sampras beat Becker, Henman, Ivanisevic, Philippoussis, Rafter and others year after year to win on fast grass, with standard balls, without poly.

Do you really think Murray, Nadal and Djokovic could do that? Really?

Federer's record at Halle is more indicative of his grass court prowess than anything he's done at what Wimbledon has become. Perhaps Federer could have done what Sampras did, but we'll never know because Wimbledon just hasn't been the same tournament since 2001. Any grinding baseline bot can win it. Under the current conditions, Muster would probably have a few Wimbledon trophies.
 

Sunny Ali

Hall of Fame
hey all three are suspicious. but for federer the only suspicious thing is he is still in top 3 at 38 and contending for slams. for those other two they play an extremely physical game. and the fact that nadal is able to physically grind down opponents ten years younger than him on clay courts makes it way more suspicious than federer playing well at 38 by shortening up points and coming to net more. but make no mistake federer is also suspicious.
Super post machan (y)
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
I have to put Sampras ahead of Federer who had one detractor (Krajicek) in '96 while Federer made a lot more finals and has a lot more losses! Dropping 3 finals to a player (Nole '14, '15, & '19) earns him a bit of a demerit; sorry! :unsure:
Sampras didn't play at Wimb past 31.

Don't get me wrong, losing to Novak is a big blemish for Fed, but you can't consider this a point in Sampras's favor when he didn't play at Wimb past the age of 31.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
People are penalizing Fed too much for the record in finals.Judging that way, Federer is better at the AO (6-1) and USO (5-2) than at Wimby (8-4).Who cares about the number of titles and finals overall, he must be better at the AO and the USO because he didn't lost nearly as much in finals.
Never beating Djokovic in a Wimb final is a big blemish on Fed's resume. One that will never go away. I don't care how old he was, he was good enough to win 1 final against Novak.

That's why there is no absolute grass king.
 

Sunny Ali

Hall of Fame
People are penalizing Fed too much for the record in finals.Judging that way, Federer is better at the AO (6-1) and USO (5-2) than at Wimby (8-4).Who cares about the number of titles and finals overall, he must be better at the AO and the USO because he didn't lost nearly as much in finals.
Machi, nobody is saying making finals and losing is a bad thing. No, it is not. However, making finals and repeatedly losing to the same player makes it difficult to anoint Federer the king of grass. That's what they're all saying.
 

Sunny Ali

Hall of Fame
Sampras beat Becker, Henman, Ivanisevic, Philippoussis, Rafter and others year after year to win on fast grass, with standard balls, without poly.

Do you really think Murray, Nadal and Djokovic could do that? Really?

Federer's record at Halle is more indicative of his grass court prowess than anything he's done at what Wimbledon has become. Perhaps Federer could have done what Sampras did, but we'll never know because Wimbledon just hasn't been the same tournament since 2001. Any grinding baseline bot can win it. Under the current conditions, Muster would probably have a few Wimbledon trophies.
Machan, if Agassi could beat Becker & others on grass, I wonder why Nadal or Djokovic could not. Now beating prime Sampras is a different proposition.
 

Fiero425

Hall of Fame
You can't lose to the same guy three times on your best surface and be the king of it. Simple as that.
And especially when 1 of those losses is a result of the 2nd biggest choke in tennis history.
Thank you! Federer has gotten the "total" benefit of the doubt for years being called "The GOAT!" At the time he was already Rafa's favorite "pigeon," beating him on all the surfaces; even grass in '08! The murmurs started about Nadal being The GOAT with validation from McEnroe and Wilander! Now Fed has 2 players with H2H record putting him "under" the Mendoza Line barely holding onto the last vestiges of being thought "the best" by being only 1 major ahead of Rafa! After getting all the accolades by overtaking Sampras' record 14 majors in just 8.5 years, he very well may be overtaken by 2 players while still active if he goes another full season or 2! How can Federer call himself the GOAT even now? I drank the Kool-Aid for Sampras who didn't even play a FO final! I won't embarrass myself again in the waning years trying to elevate Roger when he's barely holding onto any of the top records! My vote goes to Djokovic (at the moment) since he's right on their arse and had to go thru Fedal his entire career! It wasn't like he had a weak era to get fat on! Just look at the record books already with weeks @ #1, Nole-Slam (CGS), Golden Masters, defeating 30+ "Top 10" players in '15, & countless other recs that are pretty much insurmountable for future gens since they would have to have a perfect season to even come close due to points won, # of finals, and strength of Fedal era! :sneaky:
 

tonylg

Hall of Fame
Machan, if Agassi could beat Becker & others on grass, I wonder why Nadal or Djokovic could not. Now beating prime Sampras is a different proposition.
Because Agassi took the ball earlier than Nadal and could approach and volley infinitely better than Djokovic.

He only made 2 finals from 14 attempts. His win in 92 eclipses anything the other baseliners did later on.
 

Sport

Legend
Sampras beat Becker, Henman, Ivanisevic, Philippoussis, Rafter and others year after year to win on fast grass, with standard balls, without poly.

Do you really think Murray, Nadal and Djokovic could do that? Really?

Federer's record at Halle is more indicative of his grass court prowess than anything he's done at what Wimbledon has become. Perhaps Federer could have done what Sampras did, but we'll never know because Wimbledon just hasn't been the same tournament since 2001. Any grinding baseline bot can win it. Under the current conditions, Muster would probably have a few Wimbledon trophies.
Philipoussis with 0 Wimbledon titles and only 1 Wimbledon final is nowhere near on the level on grass of Murray, Nadal and Djokovic. Philippoussis with 1 Wimbledon final is like Raonic or Anderson with 1 Wimbledon final.

Ivanisevic only has 1 Wimbledon title, compared with Murray, Nadal and Djokovic with 2+ Wimbledon titles each one.

Henman 0 Wimbledon titles and 0 Wimbledon finals.

Only Becker is in the conversation and still has 2 less Wimbledon titles than Djokovic.
 

PeoplesChamp

Semi-Pro
You can't lose to the same guy three times on your best surface and be the king of it. Simple as that.
And especially when 1 of those losses is a result of the 2nd biggest choke in tennis history.
Nadal has lost 7 times to Djokovic on clay so surely be can't be the King of Clay :rolleyes:

The thread is titled "Kings of Grass" which Federer arguably was ALREADY before he played any of those finals against Djokovic at 33+ years of age.
 

tonylg

Hall of Fame
Philipoussis with 0 Wimbledon titles and only 1 Wimbledon final is nowhere near on the level on grass of Murray, Nadal and Djokovic. Philippoussis with 1 Wimbledon final is like Raonic or Anderson with 1 Wimbledon final.

Ivanisevic only has 1 Wimbledon title, compared with Murray, Nadal and Djokovic with 2+ Wimbledon titles each one.

Henman 0 Wimbledon titles and 0 Wimbledon finals.

Only Becker is in the conversation and still has 2 less Wimbledon titles than Djokovic.
Read the last paragraph of what you quoted. Wimbledon is now a tournament for baseline bots. Success there these days has ZERO relevance to results before 2002. It's basically a completely different tournament.

The best way for a lover of slow courts to understand is to imagine the French Open being sped up to the speed of old school indoor wood and Opelka winning the next 15. Means he is superior on clay to Nadal, no?
 

PeoplesChamp

Semi-Pro
Never beating Djokovic in a Wimb final is a big blemish on Fed's resume. One that will never go away. I don't care how old he was, he was good enough to win 1 final against Novak.

That's why there is no absolute grass king.
Djokovic was defending champion, #1 player in the world, favorite to win Wimbledon in 2012. Fed has his Djokovic feather in cap at Wimbledon.
 

Service Ace

Hall of Fame
Nadal has lost 7 times to Djokovic on clay so surely be can't be the King of Clay :rolleyes:

The thread is titled "Kings of Grass" which Federer arguably was ALREADY before he played any of those finals against Djokovic at 33+ years of age.
The fact that you had to resort to pumping up Halle to pad Fed’s resume says it all. King of Bo3 but the bridesmaid when it counts :unsure:
 

PeoplesChamp

Semi-Pro
The fact that you had to resort to pumping up Halle to pad Fed’s resume says it all. King of Bo3
He doesn't need Halle to be the King and where have I done that? Point that out to me please. Federer had an argument after 2012 for this and it certainly hasn't diminished by winning another Wimbledon and making three finals along with the grass titles that he acquired elsewhere that you obviously don't respect. If it was so easy to win them(Halle etc) then Djokovic and Nadal would be doing it.
 

Fiero425

Hall of Fame
The fact that you had to resort to pumping up Halle to pad Fed’s resume says it all. King of Bo3 but the bridesmaid when it counts :unsure:
Each player has a foil somewhere along the way; which is why Fedalovic will be inextricably linked for all time! Tennis Intelligentsia will try to make it all about Fedal, but Djokovic has so many records they don't have and will never acquire! :-D
 

Sunny Ali

Hall of Fame
Nadal has lost 7 times to Djokovic on clay so surely be can't be the King of Clay :rolleyes:

The thread is titled "Kings of Grass" which Federer arguably was ALREADY before he played any of those finals against Djokovic at 33+ years of age.
Machi, you still don't get the point. Federer is 1-3 against Djokovic at Wimbledon of which 0-3 in finals. Nadal is 5-1 or something to that effect against Djokovic at the FO, including 2-0 in finals. I don't know how you can even compare the 2 cases.

Machan, read the arguments again.
 

titoelcolombiano

Hall of Fame
I am into discussing tennis, and Federer is a damn fine player, so "convincing everyone how much better Federer is" is pretty relevant to the truth (although I am not sure that you actually have the capacity to estimate what and when I am saying). On the other hand your contribution to the tennis debate outside of trolling is 0 (zero). You couldn't even stop yourself at taking cheap shots at other posters who have nothing to do with your post or even apparently you have blocked. That is how low your level here is.

Reading parts of your response there sums up your sarcastic contribution to many threads perfectly.
 

titoelcolombiano

Hall of Fame
Give me a break. Nadal should currently be 7-0 too against retirerer.

I guess you've never heard of young ATG beating older ATG.

Nadal won 3 HC masters and reached 2 Wimb finals + 2 YEC SF. He wasn't a toddler off clay.
You are right - Nadal was a beast. That is my point though. If Fed was ''the greatest'' he wouldn't be losing those matches. He's not the greatest though and after all these years it is starting to come to light.
 

robthai

Hall of Fame
The probem is that he should be 7 - 0 against a youngling that is far from mature off clay
Nadal had already won a masters 1000 on fast indoor hard at 19. That is pretty mature if you ask me. Lost gen guys like Dimitrov had to wait until age 27 to mature and win their first masters title.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
You are right - Nadal was a beast. That is my point though. If Fed was ''the greatest'' he wouldn't be losing those matches. He's not the greatest though and after all these years it is starting to come to light.
Neither is Nadal. He is getting his ass handed to him by a 34+ year old.
 

titoelcolombiano

Hall of Fame
Neither is Nadal. He is getting his ass handed to him by a 34+ year old.
Rafa has nothing left to prove against Fed. He dominated Fed when Fed was in his prime and has an overall H2H and a slam H2H that will never be overhauled. Rafa is not shifting his focus to taking Fed's slam record - then he'll have both the slam record and H2H.
 

titoelcolombiano

Hall of Fame
Nadal had already won a masters 1000 on fast indoor hard at 19. That is pretty mature if you ask me. Lost gen guys like Dimitrov had to wait until age 27 to mature and win their first masters title.
Nadal was phenomenal at age 19 but if world number 1 (at the time) and 24 year old Fed was / is the GOAT he should not have been losing so much to Rafa.
 

titoelcolombiano

Hall of Fame
It's not a made-up stat. We all know Rafa is the best on clay so him having the H2H advantage after all their clay matches is no shock.
The way it's portrayed though is that Fed is somehow prohibited from winning clay titles, he's just not good enough. Rafa's won two slams on all surfaces and has the H2H advantage over Fed in two of the three slams they've met at plus has one Wimbledon victory over Fed - Fed hasn't even pushed Rafa to five sets at RG.
 
Top