titoelcolombiano
Legend
You have really become annoying lately...
I enjoy our light hearted banter. If it makes you feel better, Rafa is due for an injury absense so I won't have much to gloat about if that happens.
You have really become annoying lately...
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.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!
Maybe it's you that is avoiding reasonJust keep avoiding the facts! We all need to protect our opinions! I just try to put the stats out there and hope logic wins out as a resolution, not opinion!
Maybe it's you that is avoiding reasoning
Give me a break. Nadal should currently be 7-0 too against retirerer.The probem is that he should be 7 - 0 against a youngling that is far from mature off clay
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.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.
Otha koodi-ka-baal ... but Federer at 38 is clean? LOL
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.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.
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.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.
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...
BTW who are you quoting? Yourself? Your imaginary friend? lol - Whoever you are quoting, they might need to do a grammar check next time
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.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!
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.
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.
Sampras didn't play at Wimb past 31.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!
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
Nadal has lost 7 times to Djokovic on clay so surely be can't be the King of ClayYou 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.
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.
Djokovic was defending champion, #1 player in the world, favorite to win Wimbledon in 2012. Fed has his Djokovic feather in cap at Wimbledon.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.
Nadal has lost 7 times to Djokovic on clay so surely be can't be the King of Clay
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.
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.The fact that you had to resort to pumping up Halle to pad Fed’s resume says it all. King of Bo3
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
Nadal has lost 7 times to Djokovic on clay so surely be can't be the King of Clay
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.
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.
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.
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.The probem is that he should be 7 - 0 against a youngling that is far from mature off clay
Neither is Nadal. He is getting his ass handed to him by a 34+ year old.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.
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.
Neither does Fed. He has righted the ship with Rafa taking control of the H2H off clay.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.
Neither does Fed. He has righted the ship with Rafa taking control of the H2H off clay.
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.Off clay is a made up stat. Rafa has the H2H and will soon take the slam record.
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.
Time to bump this. 3 Kings.
Wimbledon titles
1. Federer - 8 (best streak - 5 in a row)
2. Sampras - 7 (best streak - 4 in a row)
2. Djokovic - 7 (best streak - 4 in a row)
Federer's record will never be erased but it could potentially be caught and surpassed. There's a strong chance Djokovic reaches 8 next year.Amazing! Pretty soon, Federer's record may be erased from the record books! Novak has the most prominents records already! Nole doing the "longevity" thing now!