They should rename the Wimbledon's mens singles trophy the 'Sampras Cup'

[mike danny]

I know Becker wasn't playing too well in 1993, my dad used to joke about it at the time in the manner of a resigned-Becker fan. Seemed to have a thing about wearing a cap when he wasn't playing well during that phase? Just that the younger player still needs to believe he can beat the player, ignoring his reputation. In 93, Sampras had been slamless for a while with not too stellar a Wimbledon record so props for that. I do like the 2007 Nadal win but in that instance too Fed was still frontrunning, still believed he was king of Wimbledon. After the 2008 loss, his attitude to Nadal matches changed. Against Nole, his arrogant lack of respect for him up to 2012 helped him in a way because he seemed to believe he was still the better player. Once he started respecting him too much, it seems he has conceded the edge to Nole. Yes, there is the age disadvantage but 2014 W was winnable from the position he got into in the fifth. Nole wasn't playing great in large patches of 2015 USO either, Fed just let him off the hook. Yes, overall there's no doubt Fed has had tougher competition but more so in his later career and the early part of his prime didn't help him in handling the onslaught of tougher competition. Sampras had it tough in the beginning and much easier in the latter half.

2014 Wimb was a case of Djokovic eventually outlasting Federer physically. It's not unnatural for a 27 year old to outlast a near 33 year old in a best of 5. Federer at his age is just inferior phisically to Djokovic, which is only natural.

2015 Wimb too. Federer's age was could clearly be seen after 2nd set. After he gave it his all in the first 2 sets, he simply had little left in the tank and Nole again outlasted him phisically.

Federer is experienced enough to deal with tough competition now. He's played his fair share of epics. His body just doesn't hold anymore.

 

[Unforgiven79]

Sampras never dared taking the court at Wimbledon wearing shoes with shining red soles. Federer did, and proudly stood the penalty officials have him.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

2015 W, yes. Nole made him work so hard for the 2nd set it gassed him out. I don't knock him for that loss at all, Nole was too good that day. But he wasn't so good at USO, which is the one I was talking about. Even in the fourth set, Fed was creating and failing to capitalise on opportunities to break. And not all because of clutch serving from Nole, some due to his own errors too. Likewise, I don't think Fed was too tired to put up a fight in the fifth in the 2014 W. What happened is he had chances to break which he couldn't convert on and eventually Nole did convert when Fed had the one bad service game. We have been through this data set - Fed's millionaire-esque BP conversion. It hurts against Nole and Nadal because they don't give him so many chances to convert and they might just convert the moment he slips. It's not a question of talent here but the mental game. Whatever else Nole or Nadal may not be good at from a fast court skill set point of view, they are very good at hanging in there and constantly applying pressure. This is the baggage Fed carries over from bullying Roddick & co in the mid noughties. They were very talented players but not so relentless in applying pressure on Fed's service games. We'll never know how it would have unfolded had all three been of roughly the same age.

 

[mike danny]

2015 W, yes. Nole made him work so hard for the 2nd set it gassed him out. I don't knock him for that loss at all, Nole was too good that day. But he wasn't so good at USO, which is the one I was talking about. Even in the fourth set, Fed was creating and failing to capitalise on opportunities to break. And not all because of clutch serving from Nole, some due to his own errors too. Likewise, I don't think Fed was too tired to put up a fight in the fifth in the 2014 W. What happened is he had chances to break which he couldn't convert on and eventually Nole did convert when Fed had the one bad service game. We have been through this data set - Fed's millionaire-esque BP conversion. It hurts against Nole and Nadal because they don't give him so many chances to convert and they might just convert the moment he slips. It's not a question of talent here but the mental game. Whatever else Nole or Nadal may not be good at from a fast court skill set point of view, they are very good at hanging in there and constantly applying pressure. This is the baggage Fed carries over from bullying Roddick & co in the mid noughties. They were very talented players but not so relentless in applying pressure on Fed's service games. We'll never know how it would have unfolded had all three been of roughly the same age.

So do you think that 4th set comeback in 2014 Wimb did not take enough out of Roger? Federer only had 1 BP in the 5th against Djokovic, so it's not like he wasted a lot of chances. He hung tough, but in the end phisically he couldn't hang with Nole anymore.

Djokovic doesn't need to be mentally tough to beat Federer nowadays. He knows that outlasting him phisically is enough to get the job done. That's why he is so confident against him and did not panic at 2015 Wimb. He knew that Fed's level will drop.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Washington played the 96 final against Krajicek, who beat Sampras. Here's a run through of Sampras's so called weak competition. Opponent in each final:

93: Courier, 94: Ivanisevic, 95: Becker, 97: Pioline, 98: Ivanisevic, 99: Agassi, 00: Rafter

I am aware of this. I'm not a greenhorn when it comes to tennis -- I'm aware Washington didn't play Sampras that Wimbledon; but the fact he made the final on the opposite side of the draw beggars belief: Sampras' toughest opposition (if he made the final) would have been a journeyman who made it to a career high of 11th in the world.

I think Pioline in 97 compares favourably with Scud in 2003, except that Fed was still a bit tentative and finding his range then whereas Sampras in 97 was unstoppable at Wimbledon.

I think not. Pioline played a stinker of a match -- Scud was playing lights out tennis. No comparison at all. It's a well renowned fact Pioline facing Sampras in a Wimbledon final is a joke. Don't try and compare Pioline with the guy who most likely would have taken out "king" Sampras in his peak Wimbledon year.

95 compares with 2015 for Djokovic. Fed hasn't really faced an ageing grass great to win a Wimbledon final so it's hard to find something comparable.

Because he's been "blessed" with in-prime tennis greats that can play a match without double faulting it away.

Ivanisevic was just as tough and probably a bit tougher than Roddick for Fed.

And that's because Sampras isn't as good as Fed. It's really that simple.

Agassi and Rafter are great grass players.

Did you seriously just call Agassi a great grass player?

Overall, there's nothing to suggest Sampras lucked out in Wimbledon, of all places. He wasn't the king for nothing. Didn't have an opponent of 2007 Nadal level but on an overall basis it isn't significantly easier, if that than Fed.

Well considering Wimbledon had 2 journeyman finalists back to back (1996 and 1997) it kind of implies he did have it easier.

Fed's toughest finals have been in the years he lost...2008, 2014, 2015. So it doesn't prove much either way.

Don't see how 2014 or 2015 should get a mention considering the guy's several years older than Sampras was when he retired -- 2007 and 2004 were arguably "harder" finals for Federer given he could still play great ball then.

Yes, Fed faced tougher competition in these finals than Sampras ever did but he didn't win either of them. Again, props for 2007 but that's just one final and it's not better than beating Courier/Agassi/Rafter put together. I say there's nothing much to choose between the two overall in terms of quality of competition at Wimbledon. Let's look at another player who won big in Wimbledon in the Open Era: Borg. Beat Nastase, Connors (twice), Tanner and McEnroe. THAT's tough; without Borg, Connors would be sitting on four Wimbledons so he kind cut him down to the level of an Edberg (as far as Wimbledon greats go) rather than above Mac. Of course Borg got disheartened after 1981 and ran away, which is a pity. But Borg's ability to be machine like in that era with those tiny racquets is quite incredible.

I say beating guys like Hewitt, Roddick and Murray on a consistent basis is harder than beating Rafter/Agassi and freaking COURIER on grass.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

He just didn't look too tired after that match. It's hard to tell with Fed, of course, but in 2015 he looked quite done by the 3rd already. But I noticed something different in the 2015 W final, which is that Fed came out looking tense whereas in 2014 he was more relaxed. It may have had nothing to do with playing Nole but I suspect it was. It used to happen with Nadal before and finally when Nole beat him at Wimbledon, it began to happen with Nole too. It is not that I realistically expected to see him win in any of those three finals. It wasn't one bit surprising that Nole won and probably should have won 2014 easier than that. But what was disappointing in the two 2015 finals was that Fed didn't come swinging out, with nothing to lose. He was anxious and it showed.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

But that seems at least to my point of view to be a bit simpler than overcoming an experienced multiple slam winner still not too far from his prime. Nadal has done that, Djoko has done that. It will be a mark on Fed's resume. Not his fault and he forced Nadal and Djokovic to elevate to his level to beat him. But the lack of comeback wins over the years suggests a pattern. Against Nole, he has the old age asterisk but against Nadal, nada, nothing. So, for example, mike danny has just pointed out the 2012 W win over Nole. But Nole hadn't beaten Fed at Wimbledon yet. Fed takes the 2014 final to the fifth. Nole looks kind of tired in the fifth. Fed has chances but doesn't convert and eventually loses. If Fed had won the 2014 final, I say he plays much better in their 2015 slam final encounters too. Once he takes a knock in a big match, it seems to dent his confidence.

Becker wasn't "too far from his prime" in 1995. It was obvious to many people he was past his best by that point.

He won the AO in 1996 and gave Sampras a fair fight at the Masters Cup the same year; doesn't really indicate he was close to his best. It's a bit like saying Fed today is close to his best because he beat Djoker in Cincinnati.

Also; I'd hardly say Djoker "elevated his level to Fed's". He simply waited out Fed's prime and struck while the iron was hot. Your statement seems to indicate Djokovic and Federer are both in their prime right now and I'm just clarifying this as it's pretty indicative.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

I am aware of this. I'm not a greenhorn when it comes to tennis -- I'm aware Washington didn't play Sampras that Wimbledon; but the fact he made the final on the opposite side of the draw beggars belief: Sampras' toughest opposition (if he made the final) would have been a journeyman who made it to a career high of 11th in the world.

It can happen. Berdych wasn't exactly tough opposition for Nadal either. Much tougher than Washington, sure, but not very convincing grass opposition, especially not in a final.

I think not. Pioline played a stinker of a match -- Scud was playing lights out tennis. No comparison at all. It's a well renowned fact Pioline facing Sampras in a Wimbledon final is a joke. Don't try and compare Pioline with the guy who most likely would have taken out "king" Sampras in his peak Wimbledon year.

When did Scud ever play lights out tennis in a grand slam final, though? He was brilliant in THAT match against Sampras and promptly choked against Woodforde. Taking out peak Sampras at Wimbledon in a final? No chance.

Did you seriously just call Agassi a great grass player?

Why not! The only baseliner to win Wimbledon in the 90s. And did so in 92 when it was much faster than at any time in Fed's reign.

Well considering Wimbledon had 2 journeyman finalists back to back (1996 and 1997) it kind of implies he did have it easier.

Maybe it also speaks for the depth of that era when a lesser player could trump even the champions once in a while whereas today there's Big Three and daylight. Or not even that anymore, but that's a different discussion. By the way, even Fed referred to the 2012 Rosol-Nadal match as reminiscent of the way somebody unknown could simply hit you off the court in the 90s which doesn't happen anymore.

I say beating guys like Hewitt, Roddick and Murray on a consistent basis is harder than beating Rafter/Agassi and freaking COURIER on grass.

Murray harder than Agassi? Maybe but mentally it works out the same. Agassi got thrashed on grass by Sampras and Murray too by Fed, not a whole lot of difference. Hewitt is a tricky one. Could have been a tough opponent for Fed but became more and more inconsistent during Fed's prime years. At least in 93 Courier was still a force to reckon with on the tour. Roddick was the toughest to handle in 2004. 2005 got very easy. In 2009, it was more down to Fed not being at his best. Still don't see how beating Rafter is easier than beating Roddick. Neither won Wimbledon but at least Rafter had a great net game, wonderful slices, incredible variety overall. Sampras ultimately had too much game for him but that applies in the Fed-Roddick comparison too.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Becker wasn't "too far from his prime" in 1995. It was obvious to many people he was past his best by that point.

He won the AO in 1996 and gave Sampras a fair fight at the Masters Cup the same year; doesn't really indicate he was close to his best. It's a bit like saying Fed today is close to his best because he beat Djoker in Cincinnati.

Sure, never said he was either. But he certainly wasn't too far off his prime when Sampras arrived on the scene. By 92 Sampras was already beating him regularly but his first victory over him arrived in 91 when nobody knew Becker was about to slip into a prolonged slam drought.

Also; I'd hardly say Djoker "elevated his level to Fed's". He simply waited out Fed's prime and struck while the iron was hot. Your statement seems to indicate Djokovic and Federer are both in their prime right now and I'm just clarifying this as it's pretty indicative.

No, I am not saying that. I am talking about 2011 when he did beat Fed at the US Open. That was a great match and one can blame Fed for choking on match point but that doesn't take away anything from Djokovic. He won it fair and square. That version of Fed was still a very good one albeit not as fearsome as up to 2007. Nole won some of these tough matches over and over en route to establishing himself among the ATP elite. 2012 AO was probably his crowning glory. What amazes me then is how he still managed to doubt himself from then until 2014 because I did see him winning more slams from that point than he actually did.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

It can happen. Berdych wasn't exactly tough opposition for Nadal either. Much tougher than Washington, sure, but not very convincing grass opposition, especially not in a final.

Pioline isn't either though and that's who he was stuck facing in the '97 final. The '98 and '99 finals lifted spirits a little -- but let's not pretend Agassi in '99 played an awesome match or that Goran played his best either.

When did Scud ever play lights out tennis in a grand slam final, though? He was brilliant in THAT match against Sampras and promptly choked against Woodforde. Taking out peak Sampras at Wimbledon in a final? No chance.

Scud played some pretty great ball against Fed in the '03 final. I think he'd give a few versions of Sampras a scare actually.

Why not! The only baseliner to win Wimbledon in the 90s. And did so in 92 when it was much faster than at any time in Fed's reign.

Because Agassi wasn't really great on grass. He was good during his best years -- but it was obvious (at the time) that playing Agassi on grass was totally different to playing him on his favored hardcourt. Agassi actually wasn't a great clay courter either to be honest.

Maybe it also speaks for the depth of that era when a lesser player could trump even the champions once in a while whereas today there's Big Three and daylight. Or not even that anymore, but that's a different discussion. By the way, even Fed referred to the 2012 Rosol-Nadal match as reminiscent of the way somebody unknown could simply hit you off the court in the 90s which doesn't happen anymore.

But what did Pioline really have to offer? I can understand the whole depth argument when it comes to someone like Scud or Rafter making the final unseeded; but like I've already said Pioline wasn't a great player. When it comes to top opposition he rates lower on the scale when even compared to guys like Scud or Gonzalez. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say he's about Baghdatis-level.. but even then Federer only faced an opponent like that once. Sampras (if he got through Krajicek) would have faced an opponent as weak, if not weaker than Baghdatis not once, but twice in WIMBLEDON FINALS.

Murray harder than Agassi? Maybe but mentally it works out the same. Agassi got thrashed on grass by Sampras and Murray too by Fed, not a whole lot of difference.

Wouldn't say Murray is "harder" than Agassi, but they're comparable. And Federer's trashed prime Murray at Wimbledon while being several years older than Sampras was when he retired.. Pretty much proving he'd mop the floor with 1 or 2 time baseline based Wimbledon winners at any age. Sampras has never done anything like that.

Hewitt is a tricky one. Could have been a tough opponent for Fed but became more and more inconsistent during Fed's prime years. At least in 93 Courier was still a force to reckon with on the tour. Roddick was the toughest to handle in 2004. 2005 got very easy. In 2009, it was more down to Fed not being at his best. Still don't see how beating Rafter is easier than beating Roddick. Neither won Wimbledon but at least Rafter had a great net game, wonderful slices, incredible variety overall. Sampras ultimately had too much game for him but that applies in the Fed-Roddick comparison too.

Hewitt, Murray and Roddick are all pretty qualified grass courters (especially the first two) with a long slew of victories over top opposition (including Sampras, Djokovic, Federer and many more) -- Courier just isn't on their level on the green stuff. Different story away from grass but he never really impressed me at Wimbledon.

Don't really think beating Rafter was harder than beating Roddick either though. I'd actually wager on saying Roddick was harder than Rafter given he made more Wimbledon finals/made more chances for himself. His level of play wasn't too far off Rafter either (if not better).

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Sure, never said he was either. But he certainly wasn't too far off his prime when Sampras arrived on the scene. By 92 Sampras was already beating him regularly but his first victory over him arrived in 91 when nobody knew Becker was about to slip into a prolonged slam drought.

Fair enough then. But don't forget Federer's beaten Djokovic/Nadal outside majors and pretty recently too -- kind of indicates he'd be able to challenge them at least prime for prime (in their current forms).

No, I am not saying that. I am talking about 2011 when he did beat Fed at the US Open. That was a great match and one can blame Fed for choking on match point but that doesn't take away anything from Djokovic. He won it fair and square. That version of Fed was still a very good one albeit not as fearsome as up to 2007. Nole won some of these tough matches over and over en route to establishing himself among the ATP elite. 2012 AO was probably his crowning glory. What amazes me then is how he still managed to doubt himself from then until 2014 because I did see him winning more slams from that point than he actually did.

I apologize, I thought you were referring to his 2015 incarnation. The 2011 victory was awesome and full credit to Djokovic for winning that one.

 

[Mr.Lob]

Screw Sampras and Federer. It's the Ultron cup now. Now there's a real man's WImbledon champion

I would say I'll take whatever you're smoking, but the "Ultron Cup" does have a rather nice ring to it.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Pioline isn't either though and that's who he was stuck facing in the '97 final. The '98 and '99 finals lifted spirits a little -- but let's not pretend Agassi in '99 played an awesome match or that Goran played his best either.

Sure but that still leaves us with only Pioline. And I disagree re Scud. He was quite nervous that day. As I said earlier, he never brought his best game to the finals which is probably why he didn't win on either occasion.

Because Agassi wasn't really great on grass. He was good during his best years -- but it was obvious (at the time) that playing Agassi on grass was totally different to playing him on his favored hardcourt. Agassi actually wasn't a great clay courter either to be honest.

Hard court was obviously the best surface for his style but that doesn't diminish the difficulty of actually playing a baseline game in that era and still winning Wimbledon. Maybe that made him look awkward at times off hard court but he was in another final plus semis as well, all this without having a fearsome serve and not much of a net game either. This can only be explained by how good a returner he was, which compensated for his lack of traditional grass court strengths.

But what did Pioline really have to offer? I can understand the whole depth argument when it comes to someone like Scud or Rafter making the final unseeded; but like I've already said Pioline wasn't a great player. When it comes to top opposition he rates lower on the scale when even compared to guys like Scud or Gonzalez. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say he's about Baghdatis-level.. but even then Federer only faced an opponent like that once. Sampras (if he got through Krajicek) would have faced an opponent as weak, if not weaker than Baghdatis not once, but twice in WIMBLEDON FINALS.

Would have but didn't because Krajicek took him out anyway. Pioline was the kind of player who could put together maybe a couple of impressive wins and with some luck of the draw go deep. Didn't ever have the talent to win a final but there were plenty like him in the 90s which is what made that whole era unpredictable. Sometimes threw up dud finals but that's part and parcel of having a deep field where anybody could take out the top players.

Wouldn't say Murray is "harder" than Agassi, but they're comparable. And Federer's trashed prime Murray at Wimbledon while being several years older than Sampras was when he retired.. Pretty much proving he'd mop the floor with 1 or 2 time baseline based Wimbledon winners at any age. Sampras has never done anything like that.

Sampras didn't play long enough for that, never had Fed's longevity so no argument there except the highlighted part which is just conjecture and cannot be proved.

Hewitt, Murray and Roddick are all pretty qualified grass courters (especially the first two) with a long slew of victories over top opposition (including Sampras, Djokovic, Federer and many more) -- Courier just isn't on their level on the green stuff. Different story away from grass but he never really impressed me at Wimbledon.

But again, that's a different grass we're talking about. Just making a Wimbledon final for a baseliner was a big deal in that era. Of the trio you mentioned, Hewitt could have done well probably even on old grass. Not so sure about Murray and Roddick. Yes, they may have the results to show on grass but it's not the same grass and not comparable. I mean, David Ferrer has probably done almost as well as Henman at Wimbledon and that just doesn't make sense.

Don't really think beating Rafter was harder than beating Roddick either though. I'd actually wager on saying Roddick was harder than Rafter given he made more Wimbledon finals/made more chances for himself. His level of play wasn't too far off Rafter either (if not better).

I'd argue Sampras made it look that way. And besides, Roddick was in only one more Wimbledon final than Rafter. In 2004, I would agree his level wasn't too far off Rafter (though he sort of fell away as the match went Fed's way). 2005, his approaches were horrendous. 2009 was again a very good Roddick but again Sampras played better in the 2000 match against Rafter than Fed did in 2009 against Roddick.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Fair enough then. But don't forget Federer's beaten Djokovic/Nadal outside majors and pretty recently too -- kind of indicates he'd be able to challenge them at least prime for prime (in their current forms).

I think on talent, he still does. Maybe not anymore after the knee thing but even last year he beat Nole at Dubai/Cincy. It's how he responds mentally to tough major losses that's always bothered me since 2009 AO. I mean, not literally bothered about it, lol, but it is a point that becomes tough to defend in arguments. I think the 2009 AO loss did do a lot of damage to his confidence and since then I have dreaded whenever he starts to let an opponent back into a match he's winning (a la v/s DP 2009 USO).

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Sure but that still leaves us with only Pioline. And I disagree re Scud. He was quite nervous that day. As I said earlier, he never brought his best game to the finals which is probably why he didn't win on either occasion.

In the 1998 final, sure. But watching his whole run in 2003 (including his final) showed a rejuvenated Scud. One which I truly believed would go on to win something big -- that only turned into injury and disappointment.

Hard court was obviously the best surface for his style but that doesn't diminish the difficulty of actually playing a baseline game in that era and still winning Wimbledon. Maybe that made him look awkward at times off hard court but he was in another final plus semis as well, all this without having a fearsome serve and not much of a net game either. This can only be explained by how good a returner he was, which compensated for his lack of traditional grass court strengths.

I'm not disputing that winning Wimbledon in the 90's as a baseliner is impressive; but it's a double edged sword. He can't really have been super tough opposition on the surface when he didn't naturally look his best on it. You're on point with your "awkward" comment -- as Agassi on grass did look like that at times.

His final + semifinal appearances are great too, but he was never challenging Sampras on a grass court. And that isn't just due to mentality either; Agassi simply didn't naturally play well on grass.

Would have but didn't because Krajicek took him out anyway. Pioline was the kind of player who could put together maybe a couple of impressive wins and with some luck of the draw go deep. Didn't ever have the talent to win a final but there were plenty like him in the 90s which is what made that whole era unpredictable. Sometimes threw up dud finals but that's part and parcel of having a deep field where anybody could take out the top players.

Unpredictability doesn't necessarily equal strength though.

Sampras didn't play long enough for that, never had Fed's longevity so no argument there except the highlighted part which is just conjecture and cannot be proved.

That's true that it can't be proven -- but Federer defeating Murray in rather easy fashion at an advanced age certainly implies that, wouldn't you think?

But again, that's a different grass we're talking about. Just making a Wimbledon final for a baseliner was a big deal in that era. Of the trio you mentioned, Hewitt could have done well probably even on old grass. Not so sure about Murray and Roddick. Yes, they may have the results to show on grass but it's not the same grass and not comparable. I mean, David Ferrer has probably done almost as well as Henman at Wimbledon and that just doesn't make sense.

I believe all 3 would have done pretty well on old grass. I don't feel they have really "benefited" from the new grass, persay. David Ferrer is another story and I agree with you about re: Henman but the grass Federer won on was not the same grass guys like Ferrer were making constant QF/SFs on anyway. Not as quick as Sampras' time but certainly nothing like today -- probably closer to the grass of old than what we're currently seeing anyway.

I'd argue Sampras made it look that way. And besides, Roddick was in only one more Wimbledon final than Rafter. In 2004, I would agree his level wasn't too far off Rafter (though he sort of fell away as the match went Fed's way). 2005, his approaches were horrendous. 2009 was again a very good Roddick but again Sampras played better in the 2000 match against Rafter than Fed did in 2009 against Roddick.

I disagree re: Rafter being better in 2000 than Roddick in 2009. Sampras wasn't exactly picture perfect in the 2000 final -- Rafter just didn't push him like Roddick did to Fed. You can attribute that to a difference in level or whatever, but the point is that Rafter never came as close as Roddick to beating a Sampras caliber grass courter.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I think on talent, he still does. Maybe not anymore after the knee thing but even last year he beat Nole at Dubai/Cincy. It's how he responds mentally to tough major losses that's always bothered me since 2009 AO. I mean, not literally bothered about it, lol, but it is a point that becomes tough to defend in arguments. I think the 2009 AO loss did do a lot of damage to his confidence and since then I have dreaded whenever he starts to let an opponent back into a match he's winning (a la v/s DP 2009 USO).

But going back to the 2012 Wimbledon triumph. I know Djokovic hadn't beaten Federer at Wimbledon yet, but he was the defending champion + the reigning World No. 1 and he had made the last 2 slam finals, winning one of them. He was in some pretty great form I believe -- perhaps even better than what he showed in 2014 (not 2015 as he was as solid as a rock).

Shouldn't this indicate that Fed can bounce back mentally?

 

[Tennisanity]

Why don't we just add up all the ranking points earned at Wimbldeon?

 

[Tennis_Hands]

The Chewbacca cup.

 

[Blocker]

If Sampras played Nadal and Djokovic in that embarassment of a court you call Wimbledon green clay, then it would have been over in 4 sets with Nadal and Novak holding the trophy. What happened to Nadal the last 4 years when the grass is still fresh and slick at the first week of Wimbledon?

Please don't embarrass yourself with ridiculous predictions. A prime Sampras would boss prime Djok and prime Nadal and just for the record, a prime Federer, at Wimbledon. Look, I'm sure if the court was slowed right down Nadal would have an advantage because the slowing of the courts has helped his game and his career immensley., but if the ball is bouncing off the court without any interference from the court, then Nadal is gonna get severely spanked. Sampras' game was built with Wimbledon in mind, Nadal's game was built with a lesser slam in mind. For a hundred years Wimbledon was fast grass court tennis, it's only been the last 10-13 years they slowed it down and you the moron think that's how Wimbledon is defined? In any era pre 2003 Nadal would never win Wimbledon, never. Neither would Djokovic. Borg at least won it when it was a serve volley paradise, Nadal wins it when it's a baseliner event, congratulations he achieved **** all other than winning just another baseline event. At least Sampras won a clay event without any assistance from the court.

Nadal is ****ing ****, you goose.

 

[Blocker]

His run to the USO in 1990 was incredible I agree. Though Mac especially was far from his best. Again it's a weakness of Sampras' later era that Federer didn't have those greats standing in his way during the early part of his reign. He did at least best Agassi multiple times in slams and big finals. As far as beating Becker in 1993, Boris ended the year ranked #11. It's a case of big names with little substance, Becker was dropping sets all over the place on the way to the SF. In the match itself Becker didn't perform well, he was tired and served poorly for his standards.

Its usual for older ATG's to trail younger ones. Not to mention Federer has played Djokovic more times in his 30's than before them. The lead Novak has is only slender anyway. Federer has actually dealt with Djokovic rather well on the whole. He beat Djokovic twice in majors in 11-12. Federer has his weaknesses but his overall competition has been tougher than Sampras' who was never tested by younger foes.



Federer has beaten Nadal in 2007, Djokovic in 2012 both times they were multiple slam winners (3 and 5 slams each). Federer's record against Nadal is a mark, not against Djokovic. And again Nadal is a Sampras calibre player with a match up edge and is younger to boot.

See another person who does not get Wimbledon pre 2003. You didn't have to be the best player in those days to do well at Wimbledon, you just had to be a good grass court player. Stop trying to associate rankings with how well you do at Wimbledon. Becker, whether he was ranked 11th or 111th, would still do well at Wimbledon because his game was made for Wimbledon. Not sure how it goes tiday because of all the monotnous gamestyles which have almost zero variance between players, but Wimbledon never based its seedings on rankings, it had discretion to base it on how it saw fit. Rankings obvioulsly formed the basic basis but at the top end a player ranked 1 could be seeded 2, because it was Wimbledon. An 11th ranked Becker still in ok condition would realistically be seeded 5th or 6th because he was a Wimbledon beast.

This is not to say Becker could not get beaten by a far lesser ranked player at W. He lost to Doohan in 1987 in the second round after winning in 1985 and 1986. The Wimbledon draw was always a minefield for the seeds to have to try and negotiate, unlike today, the green clay.

 

[metsman]

Roddick 2009 vis a vis Ivanisevic 98. Both tough finals, Roddick the tougher match but not by much seeing as both went to five. There is a lack of a third Ivanisevic final to make the parallel perfect but maybe we can sub the Courier match in its place.

As for your point, here I am inferring tough from quality of competition. Roddick brought a lot of fight to that 2009 final, needless to say, as did Ivanisevic in 98, but neither are all time greats. In terms of ATG quality opponent, it's only Nadal 2007. If Murray wins a few more slams, then maybe we can add 2012 but that would still be retro. Circa 2012 W, he hadn't yet won any slams.

Roddick 2005=Ivanisevic 1994. Roddick 2009-Ivanisevic 1998. Roddick 2004 was better than Ivanisevic 1994 or Becker 1995. Murray imo was about as tough as Rafter in 2000. Nadal 06 I would argue was a tad bit tougher than Courier 93 but about the same. Nadal 07 was tougher than Agassi in 99. Honestly in terms of finals opponents Federer had it a little tougher. In terms of pre finals opponents Sampras 93 is probably tougher than anything Fed had but Fed's 04, 05 or 12 was no joke either.

 

[NatF]

See another person who does not get Wimbledon pre 2003. You didn't have to be the best player in those days to do well at Wimbledon, you just had to be a good grass court player. Stop trying to associate rankings with how well you do at Wimbledon. Becker, whether he was ranked 11th or 111th, would still do well at Wimbledon because his game was made for Wimbledon. Not sure how it goes tiday because of all the monotnous gamestyles which have almost zero variance between players, but Wimbledon never based its seedings on rankings, it had discretion to base it on how it saw fit. Rankings obvioulsly formed the basic basis but at the top end a player ranked 1 could be seeded 2, because it was Wimbledon. An 11th ranked Becker still in ok condition would realistically be seeded 5th or 6th because he was a Wimbledon beast.

This is not to say Becker could not get beaten by a far lesser ranked player at W. He lost to Doohan in 1987 in the second round after winning in 1985 and 1986. The Wimbledon draw was always a minefield for the seeds to have to try and negotiate, unlike today, the green clay.

But Becker wasn't playing great whatever his ranking. The point was to say Becker wasn't having a great year AND he played like it in the SF. If he had dialled back the years I wouldn't bother to comment on his ranking.

 

[metsman]

But Sampras went through Lendl and Mac for his first USO final. THAT's tough. Again, Becker at Wimbledon in 93. Sampras had a tougher initiation, which is forgotten today because people have a way of focusing on HIS age contemporaries and not of those past champions in their mid-late twenties. Maybe they would have won a few more without him becoming a winning machine? Lendl was probably if not definitely past it but Edberg was the 92 USO champion. Becker was still young in 93, only 26. Good enough to win AO 3 years later. This initiation imo toughed up Sampras when he preyed on the wasteland that was 97-99. Yeah, Fed beat Sampras in W in 2001 so it's not his fault that he didn't get that kind of opposition in subsequent years. But does it have something to do with how his rivalries with Nadal and Djokovic have panned out? Quite possibly. Yes, Sampras didn't have opponents like them but Fed has a losing H2H against them anyway. Hasn't beaten Nole in a slam final in a long time and hasn't beaten Nadal in a slam MATCH in a long time. Yes, he's old now but he wasn't old circa AO 2009. We have to be honest here and acknowledge that Fed doesn't enjoy the tennis equivalent of bloody boxing bouts too much. He wants to lord it over his opponents and gets grumpy when they don't roll over.



But that seems at least to my point of view to be a bit simpler than overcoming an experienced multiple slam winner still not too far from his prime. Nadal has done that, Djoko has done that. It will be a mark on Fed's resume. Not his fault and he forced Nadal and Djokovic to elevate to his level to beat him. But the lack of comeback wins over the years suggests a pattern. Against Nole, he has the old age asterisk but against Nadal, nada, nothing. So, for example, mike danny has just pointed out the 2012 W win over Nole. But Nole hadn't beaten Fed at Wimbledon yet. Fed takes the 2014 final to the fifth. Nole looks kind of tired in the fifth. Fed has chances but doesn't convert and eventually loses. If Fed had won the 2014 final, I say he plays much better in their 2015 slam final encounters too. Once he takes a knock in a big match, it seems to dent his confidence.

P.S: Just remembered one more thing. Fed lost to Henman the very next round after beating Sampras. He had opportunities to win almost all the sets he lost IIRC. Had he won that match, who knows what kind of script would have played out. Yes, he was young and inexperienced then but only as young and inexperienced as Sampras himself was at 1990 USO.

yeah I remember watching the Henman and was quite frustrated because Fed did have great chances to win that one and really make things interesting. If he had played the rest of the tournament like he did against Sampras he could have won. He would have beaten Goran in that form who was shaky at times. But he wasn't mentally ready yet to be consistent match to match like sampras was in 1990. That came 2 years later.

 

[timnz]

If you're going to make the final, you have to win, otherwise you're just the first in line to the losing bunch.

So losing in the 4th round is better than being runner-up - that is the implication of what you are saying. Because you count Federer's runner-up against him - but you don't count Sampras' fourth round against him.

It is simply as this - in the top 10 performances at Wimbledon - Federer has a superior record. To say otherwise is to say it is worse to make a final than a 4th round, quarter or semi's. There just isn't anyway around this.

 

[xFedal]

So losing in the 4th round is better than being runner-up - that is the implication of what you are saying. Because you count Federer's runner-up against him - but you don't count Sampras' fourth round against him.

It is simply as this - in the top 10 performances at Wimbledon - Federer has a superior record. To say otherwise is to say it is worse to make a final than a 4th round, quarter or semi's. There just isn't anyway around this.

Sampras 5/7 Wimbledons with his serve unbroken, he was more dominant?

 

[timnz]

Sampras 5/7 Wimbledons with his serve unbroken, he was more dominant?

Well is got his serve broken in his 8th, 9th, 10th best wimbledons. There just isn't a way of escaping the fact that runner-up is better than a 4th round. I just don't understand why people count runner-up's against a player but never count losing before the final round against them.

 

[I am the Greatest!]

Please don't embarrass yourself with ridiculous predictions. A prime Sampras would boss prime Djok and prime Nadal and just for the record, a prime Federer, at Wimbledon. Look, I'm sure if the court was slowed right down Nadal would have an advantage because the slowing of the courts has helped his game and his career immensley., but if the ball is bouncing off the court without any interference from the court, then Nadal is gonna get severely spanked. Sampras' game was built with Wimbledon in mind, Nadal's game was built with a lesser slam in mind. For a hundred years Wimbledon was fast grass court tennis, it's only been the last 10-13 years they slowed it down and you the moron think that's how Wimbledon is defined? In any era pre 2003 Nadal would never win Wimbledon, never. Neither would Djokovic. Borg at least won it when it was a serve volley paradise, Nadal wins it when it's a baseliner event, congratulations he achieved **** all other than winning just another baseline event. At least Sampras won a clay event without any assistance from the court.

Nadal is ******* ****, you goose.

Oh shut it if you don't understand my post, and you have the guts to call me moron? Well f*ck you stupid dumbsh!t. You're the one who is a moron. Read my post again stupid duck.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Please don't embarrass yourself with ridiculous predictions. A prime Sampras would boss prime Djok and prime Nadal and just for the record, a prime Federer, at Wimbledon. Look, I'm sure if the court was slowed right down Nadal would have an advantage because the slowing of the courts has helped his game and his career immensley., but if the ball is bouncing off the court without any interference from the court, then Nadal is gonna get severely spanked. Sampras' game was built with Wimbledon in mind, Nadal's game was built with a lesser slam in mind. For a hundred years Wimbledon was fast grass court tennis, it's only been the last 10-13 years they slowed it down and you the moron think that's how Wimbledon is defined? In any era pre 2003 Nadal would never win Wimbledon, never. Neither would Djokovic. Borg at least won it when it was a serve volley paradise, Nadal wins it when it's a baseliner event, congratulations he achieved **** all other than winning just another baseline event. At least Sampras won a clay event without any assistance from the court.

Nadal is ******* ****, you goose.

Dude, he struggled with Lleyton Hewitt on grass between 1999-2000 and you want to argue that he's going to easily defeat 3 baseliners that are 5-10 times better than him?

Sure, Sampras would get his fair share of wins but let's not live in the past. The reality is that Djokovic, Nadal and Federer have won multiple Wimbledons -- and the latter would especially excel in 90's conditions. I think Djokovic and Nadal would be good enough to get Agassi-like or better success on even the faster grass; leaning more toward Novak though.

It's insane to think he's that much better than these guys. Sampras was a great player but really let's not pretend he was something he wasn't.

 

[metsman]

Dude, he struggled with Lleyton Hewitt on grass between 1999-2000 and you want to argue that he's going to easily defeat 3 baseliners that are 5-10 times better than him?

Sure, Sampras would get his fair share of wins but let's not live in the past. The reality is that Djokovic, Nadal and Federer have won multiple Wimbledons -- and the latter would especially excel in 90's conditions. I think Djokovic and Nadal would be good enough to get Agassi-like or better success on even the faster grass; leaning more toward Novak though.

It's insane to think he's that much better than these guys. Sampras was a great player but really let's not pretend he was something he wasn't.

Sampras would beat Nadal and Djoker at Wimby. Hewitt returns first serve on fast surfaces/grass exceptionally well and has elite passing shots. The textbook formula for beating Sampras. Djoker is ok at both but not as good as Hewitt and would be even worse on faster grass. Nadal has the passing shots but is not good at returning big first serves on grass. All about matchups.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

In the 1998 final, sure. But watching his whole run in 2003 (including his final) showed a rejuvenated Scud. One which I truly believed would go on to win something big -- that only turned into injury and disappointment.

Agree to disagree. Again, - and I didn't watch his matches before the final - he may have had a good run up to the final but he was quite flat in the final. It took some time for Fed to really find his range in that match and a better opponent could have at least taken the first set.

I'm not disputing that winning Wimbledon in the 90's as a baseliner is impressive; but it's a double edged sword. He can't really have been super tough opposition on the surface when he didn't naturally look his best on it. You're on point with your "awkward" comment -- as Agassi on grass did look like that at times.

His final + semifinal appearances are great too, but he was never challenging Sampras on a grass court. And that isn't just due to mentality either; Agassi simply didn't naturally play well on grass.

No argument there but those are all the reasons I call him a grass great. He did really well there, better than Rafter and about as well as Ivanisevic, in spite of not possessing the required tools for grass. Goes to show returns were very important then too.

Unpredictability doesn't necessarily equal strength though.

It doesn't but it adds to making the field tough. Our game is all about match ups. Having a few really tough opponents may make life tough in the business end of slams but it's also predictable and they know what to expect from each other. In the 90s, there could be absolutely anybody turning up at the QFs or even semis. That makes it much harder to know what to expect from the match. Sampras probably got through by honing in on his weapon and maximising it, needless to say, the serve. That's the only way to shut out competition from the equation. That is probably also why others in that era pale in comparison, because nobody could serve like him, match after match and in the clutch even facing triple break points.

That's true that it can't be proven -- but Federer defeating Murray in rather easy fashion at an advanced age certainly implies that, wouldn't you think?

It implies that Fed could beat a player like Murray any time. And even then, I wouldn't stretch it too much because a little bit of a physical loss can change everything in this sport. We have to see how his knee thing goes, how well he recovers. But let's stick to up to 2015. He can beat a player like Murray but what if hypothetically somebody of the level of prime Nole just springs up to face him and is only one or two slams old at the time. Could it be different then? Quite possible. So I'd focus on the LEVEL of the opponent rather than what previous success he has tasted. Said differently, Wawrinka, even on grass, is a more formidable proposition against ******* than Murray because Murray may have won a lot but only to fold against the Big Three.

I believe all 3 would have done pretty well on old grass. I don't feel they have really "benefited" from the new grass, persay. David Ferrer is another story and I agree with you about re: Henman but the grass Federer won on was not the same grass guys like Ferrer were making constant QF/SFs on anyway. Not as quick as Sampras' time but certainly nothing like today -- probably closer to the grass of old than what we're currently seeing anyway.

I think the grass hasn't been the same since 99 or so. That is the first time we can observe the unusual 'hard' bounce with the ball literally sitting up for top spin shots from the baseline instead of skidding through. Was it the balls or was it the grass, I don't know but all I know is Wimbledon hasn't played the same since then. Altering the composition altogether in 2001 slowed it down even further, with it getting still slower over the years. So if I were to compare the grass on which Sampras won his Wimbledons or Agassi his lone one, no, either which way I find it very different even from 2003 grass. But 2003 is not THAT dissimilar to the one on which Rafter made his two finals (the higher bounce helped his kick serve). So to that extent, it is possible to compare Rafter with those three noughties guys but not Courier. I don't know what if anything Courier would have won at Wimbledon in the 90s anyway but he would have enjoyed the 99 grass. He was robbed, lol.

I disagree re: Rafter being better in 2000 than Roddick in 2009. Sampras wasn't exactly picture perfect in the 2000 final -- Rafter just didn't push him like Roddick did to Fed. You can attribute that to a difference in level or whatever, but the point is that Rafter never came as close as Roddick to beating a Sampras caliber grass courter.

Fair enough, that I do agree. But it's not just the one Rafter match versus three Roddick matches, right? There's the 98 Ivanisevic match too. When all is said and done, there really isn't much of a difference in the competition either player faced en route to their successful Wimbledon finals. How much will Fed's unsuccessful campaigns weigh on the equation, I don't know, it's a new one. Does anybody count Becker's losses to Edberg, Stich and Sampras at Wimbledon to show he was better than the record shows? Does the 1981 loss of Borg to Mac add to his legacy? I don't think so. Will it be that or will it be aging graceful warrior a la Agassi/Connors in the case of Fed? Which way will public perception go is hard to tell today. It will become clearer 10 years from now.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

yeah I remember watching the Henman and was quite frustrated because Fed did have great chances to win that one and really make things interesting. If he had played the rest of the tournament like he did against Sampras he could have won. He would have beaten Goran in that form who was shaky at times. But he wasn't mentally ready yet to be consistent match to match like sampras was in 1990. That came 2 years later.

Yeah, I too think he could have probably beaten Goran if he hadn't gone through Henman. Maybe not Rafter who was too seasoned and too steady for a young debutant like Fed. But it may have altered the course of his career, maybe he would have found his range sooner had he at least won the Henman match.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Roddick 2005=Ivanisevic 1994. Roddick 2009-Ivanisevic 1998. Roddick 2004 was better than Ivanisevic 1994 or Becker 1995. Murray imo was about as tough as Rafter in 2000. Nadal 06 I would argue was a tad bit tougher than Courier 93 but about the same. Nadal 07 was tougher than Agassi in 99. Honestly in terms of finals opponents Federer had it a little tougher. In terms of pre finals opponents Sampras 93 is probably tougher than anything Fed had but Fed's 04, 05 or 12 was no joke either.

Never said Fed's competition was a joke anyway. Again, I repeat, it only looks that way because it started with responding to a put down of Sampras's competition. I can live with 'little tougher'. That's just a matter of opinion and nothing much to agree or disagree there.

 

[metsman]

Yeah, I too think he could have probably beaten Goran if he hadn't gone through Henman. Maybe not Rafter who was too seasoned and too steady for a young debutant like Fed. But it may have altered the course of his career, maybe he would have found his range sooner had he at least won the Henman match.

maybe...he clearly had the game in 02 to do something as he was a little more physically mature then and had more pop from the ground, but the inconsistency was still there which led to the 1st round disasters at RG and Wimby along with blowing the Haas match at Oz.

 

[abmk]

Agree to disagree. Again, - and I didn't watch his matches before the final - he may have had a good run up to the final but he was quite flat in the final. It took some time for Fed to really find his range in that match and a better opponent could have at least taken the first set.

nope, scud was pretty fine in that final, though not at his very best.

as far as federer's first set goes, 17 winners to 1 UE, no BPs faced ( in the whole match actually )
(scud had 21 winners to 7 UEs)

see at the 6 min mark :

sure, federer was better in the 2nd set where he was absolutely zoned in, but its not that he hadn't found his range in the 1st set.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Agree to disagree. Again, - and I didn't watch his matches before the final - he may have had a good run up to the final but he was quite flat in the final. It took some time for Fed to really find his range in that match and a better opponent could have at least taken the first set.

His run to the final wasn't uneventful. He had 2 consecutive five setters with Agassi and Popp -- both playing very good tennis. He then defeated Grosjean in straight sets, setting up the final with Federer.

The fact he took out Agassi (and in 5 sets) showed to me his mentality was better than it was a few years previous. Scud's 2003 Wimbledon final run reminds me very much of Roddick's in 2009 personally.

No argument there but those are all the reasons I call him a grass great. He did really well there, better than Rafter and about as well as Ivanisevic, in spite of not possessing the required tools for grass. Goes to show returns were very important then too.

They are the reasons I don't really rate him on the surface though -- or put him on the level of the Big 3 on the surface. It's not really his fault; but it's just the way it is IMO.

It doesn't but it adds to making the field tough. Our game is all about match ups. Having a few really tough opponents may make life tough in the business end of slams but it's also predictable and they know what to expect from each other. In the 90s, there could be absolutely anybody turning up at the QFs or even semis. That makes it much harder to know what to expect from the match. Sampras probably got through by honing in on his weapon and maximising it, needless to say, the serve. That's the only way to shut out competition from the equation. That is probably also why others in that era pale in comparison, because nobody could serve like him, match after match and in the clutch even facing triple break points.

But that "anybody" wasn't usually someone who had the mentality to win majors -- despite playing well for a match or two on route to getting there. That still happens today though, especially at Wimbledon.

Remember 2013 where Janowicz made the SF and Kubot made the QF? Same story; once again doesn't really make things stronger overall IMO.

It implies that Fed could beat a player like Murray any time. And even then, I wouldn't stretch it too much because a little bit of a physical loss can change everything in this sport. We have to see how his knee thing goes, how well he recovers. But let's stick to up to 2015. He can beat a player like Murray but what if hypothetically somebody of the level of prime Nole just springs up to face him and is only one or two slams old at the time. Could it be different then? Quite possible. So I'd focus on the LEVEL of the opponent rather than what previous success he has tasted. Said differently, Wawrinka, even on grass, is a more formidable proposition against ******* than Murray because Murray may have won a lot but only to fold against the Big Three.

Well, up until Federer was 34 years of age he was besting players of Murray's caliber in and out of majors. That sort of implies he wouldn't have much difficulty with lesser players that never displayed the level to trouble Federer to begin with.

Murray's level to me wasn't too dissimilar any of his other prime years (not 2013, obviously, as he was on fire in the final). But comparing 2015 Murray with 2010 Murray; you'd hardly notice a difference.

I think the grass hasn't been the same since 99 or so. That is the first time we can observe the unusual 'hard' bounce with the ball literally sitting up for top spin shots from the baseline instead of skidding through. Was it the balls or was it the grass, I don't know but all I know is Wimbledon hasn't played the same since then. Altering the composition altogether in 2001 slowed it down even further, with it getting still slower over the years. So if I were to compare the grass on which Sampras won his Wimbledons or Agassi his lone one, no, either which way I find it very different even from 2003 grass. But 2003 is not THAT dissimilar to the one on which Rafter made his two finals (the higher bounce helped his kick serve). So to that extent, it is possible to compare Rafter with those three noughties guys but not Courier. I don't know what if anything Courier would have won at Wimbledon in the 90s anyway but he would have enjoyed the 99 grass. He was robbed, lol.

I just don't really see Courier enjoying much success on grass. His game was better suited for slower surfaces; and even in 1999 the grass was quite quick still. In today's game he might manage a Wimbledon or two but not on 1999-2003 grass.

Fair enough, that I do agree. But it's not just the one Rafter match versus three Roddick matches, right? There's the 98 Ivanisevic match too. When all is said and done, there really isn't much of a difference in the competition either player faced en route to their successful Wimbledon finals. How much will Fed's unsuccessful campaigns weigh on the equation, I don't know, it's a new one. Does anybody count Becker's losses to Edberg, Stich and Sampras at Wimbledon to show he was better than the record shows? Does the 1981 loss of Borg to Mac add to his legacy? I don't think so. Will it be that or will it be aging graceful warrior a la Agassi/Connors in the case of Fed? Which way will public perception go is hard to tell today. It will become clearer 10 years from now.

There's the 2004 match, too. Only in the 2005 match was Roddick subpar, really. But Federer had a tough test in Hewitt beforehand anyway (which was probably the real final) and despite getting through in straights, it wasn't an easy victory.

I always felt Federer and Sampras had a lot of parallels -- that's what I meant when I posted in another thread (or maybe even this one) about Federer coming from a generation that didn't expect to play long after 30. Sampras' generation and Federer's are VERY similar. It's only fitting to judge them in the same light; and doing so we can see Federer's had equal highs but his lows weren't anywhere near Sampras'.

I'm not talking about surface/balls/equipment either. I'm talking about the longevity factor -- which Federer's also benefited from but only because some of his best days fell into the current time period where medicine and treatment are much greater than in the past.

 

[ultradr]

The gentlemens singles final at Wimbledon, the world's most important tennis match, and the trophy that goes to the winner, the world's most important tennis trophy.

Sampras made the final 7 times for 7 wins. Never lost the final, never looked like losing the final such was his dominance, and in all beat a combined 3 separate winners of the event and 5 Wimbledon champions all up. Phenomenal. Remarkable. Unbelievable.

It's about time the trophy was renamed the 'Sampras Cup' or the 'Sampras Trophy' to honour the greatest Wimbledon champion of all time because no one will ever replicate his astonishing feat, to make the final of the world's biggest event at least 7 times and not lose is phenomenal. And it's not just that he never lost, it's the way he went about demolishing his final opponents.

This was all done mind you in an era where dangerous unseeded serve and volleyers lurked at every stage.

Just for the record the women's winner should receive the 'Navratilova Plate'.

That is all.

Hmm, the current game of Wimbledon is far from classic game Sampras played at Wimbledon.
It is more like fast clay courts or hard courts with uncertain bounces.

Sampras is the last true grass court champion.
As far as I'm concerned, the Wimbldon tradition died some time around 2003.
"Sampras Cup" will mislead public on the current state of Wimbledon, IMHO.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Sampras would beat Nadal and Djoker at Wimby. Hewitt returns first serve on fast surfaces/grass exceptionally well and has elite passing shots. The textbook formula for beating Sampras. Djoker is ok at both but not as good as Hewitt and would be even worse on faster grass. Nadal has the passing shots but is not good at returning big first serves on grass. All about matchups.

I think Djoker has a better return all-around -- I think he'd pose Sampras a few problems; especially considering Federer employed similar tactics to Sampras (first serve, volley, try to finish the point) and it didn't work out. Sampras obviously was a much greater net player; but I don't see that strategy working out well against the likes of Djokovic.

Nadal would hang in there and wait for his opportunities -- like he did with Fed. "Weather the storm" in his words. His mentality and powerful baseline groundstrokes would hurt Sampras a little I feel -- different story to playing a guy like Chang on grass.

 

[abmk]

How much will Fed's unsuccessful campaigns weigh on the equation, I don't know, it's a new one. Does anybody count Becker's losses to Edberg, Stich and Sampras at Wimbledon to show he was better than the record shows? Does the 1981 loss of Borg to Mac add to his legacy? I don't think so. Will it be that or will it be aging graceful warrior a la Agassi/Connors in the case of Fed? Which way will public perception go is hard to tell today. It will become clearer 10 years from now.

pretty sure most remember mac's loss to borg in 80...nadal's to federer's in wim 07 ...

the wim 08 and wim 14 losses of federer will be remembered in the similar light ...

not the 15 one obviously, but people will remember the performance vs Murray in the SF ..

 

[Fiero425]

I think Djoker has a better return all-around -- I think he'd pose Sampras a few problems; especially considering Federer employed similar tactics to Sampras (first serve, volley, try to finish the point) and it didn't work out. Sampras obviously was a much greater net player; but I don't see that strategy working out well against the likes of Djokovic.

Nadal would hang in there and wait for his opportunities -- like he did with Fed. "Weather the storm" in his words. His mentality and powerful baseline groundstrokes would hurt Sampras a little I feel -- different story to playing a guy like Chang on grass.

Funny you should bring up Sampras and Chang! I have a very vivid memory of them playing at Wimbledon! Chang was playing as well as he could, making great "gets," but Sampras was "in the zone" and just "toyed" with him in 3 mercifully quick sets; 4,1 &3! What sets Sampras apart from all other champions is his serve; esp. the 2nd! No one saved as many BP's as Pete with that one lone weapon! I set him above Roger since we all know the list of players going into the HOF before, during and after Pete was long gone! Roger didn't have half as much talent opposing him; "sorry guys, I just can't help myself!" I used to muse that at any given time, there could be 12 GS winners in the men's draw! That isn't possible these days with 4 players pretty much locked in and taking just about everything in sight! ;-)

 

[Blocker]

Hmm, the current game of Wimbledon is far from classic game Sampras played at Wimbledon.
It is more like fast clay courts or hard courts with uncertain bounces.

Sampras is the last true grass court champion.
As far as I'm concerned, the Wimbldon tradition died some time around 2003.
"Sampras Cup" will mislead public on the current state of Wimbledon, IMHO.

All the more reason we should name it the Sampras Cup. What, are we as a human race going to pretend that dinosaurs never existed when we as a race have been around for 2 minutes relatively speaking. Wimbledon has for the most part been about serve and volley and who is to stay it won't return to its glory years?

 

[Blocker]

Dude, he struggled with Lleyton Hewitt on grass between 1999-2000 and you want to argue that he's going to easily defeat 3 baseliners that are 5-10 times better than him?

Sure, Sampras would get his fair share of wins but let's not live in the past. The reality is that Djokovic, Nadal and Federer have won multiple Wimbledons -- and the latter would especially excel in 90's conditions. I think Djokovic and Nadal would be good enough to get Agassi-like or better success on even the faster grass; leaning more toward Novak though.

It's insane to think he's that much better than these guys. Sampras was a great player but really let's not pretend he was something he wasn't.

Hewitt was beating Sampras at Queens, not at Wimbledon. And Hewitt never played a peak Sampras. I maintain my stance, at Wimbledon Sampras was king and still is today.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Hewitt was beating Sampras at Queens, not at Wimbledon. And Hewitt never played a peak Sampras. I maintain my stance, at Wimbledon Sampras was king and still is today.

Hewitt was beating Sampras every single match they played bar one from Queens until his retirement so it's not absurd to believe he'd trouble him on Wimbledon courts.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Hewitt was beating Sampras every single match they played bar one from Queens until his retirement so it's not absurd to believe he'd trouble him on Wimbledon courts.

Hewitt did seem to trouble Sampras, but not sure why as his game could be seen as a weaker version of Agassi's. I guess you could argue Hewitt's game was more counterpunchy and suited faster courts more.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Hewitt did seem to trouble Sampras, but not sure why as his game could be seen as a weaker version of Agassi's. I guess you could argue Hewitt's game was more counterpunchy and suited faster courts more.

That's not something Novak or Nadal are foreign to either though. I don't think it's absurd to believe either could trouble Sampras during his prime.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

That's not something Novak or Nadal are foreign to either though. I don't think it's absurd to believe either could trouble Sampras during his prime.

I think they could, in fact I'd say Murray might as well ...not as good of players as Nadalovic, but more of a true counterpuncher. I could see him giving Pete a battle on fast grass.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I think they could, in fact I'd say Murray might as well ...not as good of players as Nadalovic, but more of a true counterpuncher. I could see him giving Pete a battle on fast grass.

Yeah Murray definitely. Sampras struggled with anybody that mixed things up from the baseline I think. Chang didn't offer much variety in his game despite being sturdy; that's why he never really challenged Sampras despite being a great counterpuncher.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Yeah Murray definitely. Sampras struggled with anybody that mixed things up from the baseline I think. Chang didn't offer much variety in his game despite being sturdy; that's why he never really challenged Sampras despite being a great counterpuncher.

Djokovic as well struggles with variety imo. That's why I've been surprised he deals with Murray so well, although there was the period where Murray thrived on faster surfaces (USO 12, Wimby '13)

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Djokovic as well struggles with variety imo. That's why I've been surprised he deals with Murray so well, although there was the period where Murray thrived on faster surfaces (USO 12, Wimby '13)

Well he's elevated his game to a new level and Murray's reverted back to his level of old. The gap is simply wider now than it was before, due to surgery and Djokovic's rise.

 

[Mainad]

A

It implies that Fed could beat a player like Murray any time. And even then, I wouldn't stretch it too much because a little bit of a physical loss can change everything in this sport. We have to see how his knee thing goes, how well he recovers. But let's stick to up to 2015. He can beat a player like Murray but what if hypothetically somebody of the level of prime Nole just springs up to face him and is only one or two slams old at the time. Could it be different then? Quite possible. So I'd focus on the LEVEL of the opponent rather than what previous success he has tasted. Said differently, Wawrinka, even on grass, is a more formidable proposition against ******* than Murray because Murray may have won a lot but only to fold against the Big Three.

How so? On grass, Murray is 3-5 vs the Big 3. Wawrinka is 0-2 (and 0-2 vs Murray).

 

[Deleted member 716271]

How so? On grass, Murray is 3-5 vs the Big 3. Wawrinka is 0-2 (and 0-2 vs Murray).

Yeah I got his point off grass, but definitely not on grass. Wawrinka is a poor grass player, and Murray;s best surface is grass.