Top 20 all time in no particular order

[AgassiSuperSlam11]

yes, I did read that, but I explained why the multiple surfaces argument doesn't hold as much weight in this case.
Wilander winning those 2 AOs is good, but not a major accomplishment - that'd be post-hoc revision.

I've been stating arguments against the multiple surface argument forever. Especially with the more homogenous courts of today. Rosewall has a better distribution in Grand and Pro Slams over Laver yet few will say Rosewall was better than Laver since he won 6 or more slams in Clay, Wood, and Grass.

 

[Holmes]

The correct order of the in no proper order list:

Gonzales, Laver, Rosewall, Sampras, Borg, Tilden, Budge, McEnroe, Agassi, Lendl, Connors, Kramer, Vines, Perry, Lacoste, Cochet, Becker, Djokovic, Nadal, Federer

 

[BeatlesFan]

yes, I did read that, but I explained why the multiple surfaces argument doesn't hold as much weight in this case.
Wilander winning those 2 AOs is good, but not a major accomplishment

Winning 2 AO's is a major accomplishment, I don't care if Mats beat a 60 year old pub owner in the finals. I never liked Wilander, but he won 7 slams, was ranked #1 and won 33 career titles. There's no disputing he was absolutely an ATG. With only one less slam than Connors, Ivan and Andre, there's no doubt.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Becker would have been a "beta" as well if Sampras and Agassi had been born the same year, not to mention if Borg had been just five years older and still playing productively. That's the situation Murray found himself in and still beat the most accomplished player of all time 2x in Slam Finals during that player's peak stretch.

Agassi is only 2.5 years younger than Becker. Make Sampras and him the same age as Boris and they wouldn’t interfere with Becker’s Wimbly wins at 17, 18 and 21 years old (neither of them was a world beater at Wimbledon at that age). If you throw in Borg, you need to be fair and at least remove Edberg, Wilander, Lendl, Stich to make that era really comparable to Murray’s in which case Becker gets more chances to pile up Wimbly titles in the absence of Edberg. As for his indoor record: he battled it out mostly against prime/peak Sampras anyways while being a little older himself, so if we make them the same age, this would likely rather benefit him than being detrimental.

I don't see any Slam F wins over PETE or DRE on BB's resume, do you?

He only played one anyways. Murray is 2-8 against Federer and Djokovic in slam finals combined, while Stan is 3-1 against Novak and Nadal combined. So I wouldn’t say this metric says much tbh.
In the end: Becker is arguably top 5 on grass OE and easily top 3 indoors, while Murray is arguably not top ten OE on any surface.

 

[abmk]

Winning 2 AO's is a major accomplishment, I don't care if Mats beat a 60 year old pub owner in the finals. I never liked Wilander, but he won 7 slams, was ranked #1 and won 33 career titles. There's no disputing he was absolutely an ATG. With only one less slam than Connors, Ivan and Andre, there's no doubt.

Oh Wilander is absolutely an ATG, no doubt. But those AOs in 83 and 84 had very few top 20 players and wasn't even 4th most important event in those years - that was the YEC.

 

[AgassiSuperSlam11]

Edberg was just 18 at the time of AO 84 and ended 1984 ranked 20. You can leave him out.
Curren was hovering in the 11-20th rank range that time.
Hence why I said 84 in particular was weak.

83 AO - Wilander did beat Mac and Lendl. But the field in itself had very few top 20 players participating in that AO.

If those fields are weak then what does that make winning Wimbledon titles without defeating one GS champion? Edberg would win the AO in Grass the very next year. In addition, Wilander defeated Kriek who was the 2-time defending champion. Wilander defeated three guys in a row who were past and future GS champs in 1983. He defeated a GS champion in 1984 and a guy who was only one year away from winning that same slam.

 

[abmk]

I've been stating arguments against the multiple surface argument forever. Especially with the more homogenous courts of today. Rosewall has a better distribution in Grand and Pro Slams over Laver yet few will say Rosewall was better than Laver since he won 6 or more slams in Clay, Wood, and Grass.

I see your point on the 1st part.
The Rosewall/Laver case is different given circumstances of that era.

 

[abmk]

If those fields are weak then what does that make winning Wimbledon titles without defeating one GS champion? Edberg would win the AO in Grass the very next year. In addition, Wilander defeated Kriek who was the 2-time defending champion. Wilander defeated three guys in a row who were past and future GS champs in 1983. He defeated a GS champion in 1984 and a guy who was only one year away from winning that same slam.

fields strength in this case is referring to top 20 players playing. When you have very few playing, that prestige/importance goes down. The YEC, not the AO was the 4th most important event in those years in 83/84.

there can be a lot of difference in one year. Like I said Edberg was 18 at that time and ended the year ranked #20.

Wimbledon 1985 had full strength fields with Curren playing amazing to knock out Connors and Mac.
Form dipped in final, but Becker still had to play well to beat him.

 

[Wander]

I think if you're going to replace someone in OPs list with Murray (which I personally think is reasonable), it should be one of the French musketeers (Cochet, Lacoste). Good careers, but chronically overrated.

You could also of course replace any of the honourable mentions with Andy.

 

[AgassiSuperSlam11]

I think longevity is something that should be considered in any ATG list and the issue with Wilander was after he finally became #1 after defeating Lendl in the 1988 USO Final he really was never the same again. Players like Rosewall, Pancho, and Connors to their credit kept competing late in their career with the same hunger they had in their prime.

 

[Fiero425]

Oh Wilander is absolutely an ATG, no doubt. But those AOs in 83 and 84 had very few top 20 players and wasn't even 4th most important event in those years - that was the YEC.

Never cared for Wilander & his defensive way of playing the game, but hard to overlook as an ATG! He got to #1 & had one of those super seasons winning 3 majors!

 

[Holmes]

Well, Murray's success against Novak is not against peak Novak on Grass, so lets not read a lot into that win. Murray would not beat 2015 Novak, I am sure of it.

Becker vs Agassi his tongue was his predictability which Agassi exploited, Pete obviously was a bit better, despite that I would say even if all are aged same Becker still gets his 3 early wimbledons nd he would be ruthless force indoors that he always was. Plus it was Agassi who benefitted from Becker being 3 years older, do you see 1992 Agassi beat 1989 Becker at wimbledon? So it is Agassi who benefitted there and Becker still beat Agassi in 1995 at Wimbledon when Agassi was at his super peak ... right? 29 year old becker beat peaky agassi.... So your theory of Becker becoming a beta in presence of Pete and Agassi is not sellable, he would still get his 3 wimbledons and some slams + epic indoor wins outside it even in their direct same aged scenario.

However, if you send Sir Andy Murray to Roddick's Birthyear then Peak Federer ensures that Murray retires with Davydenko at 0 slams.

Murray wouldn't beat any well playing version of Novak on grass, any non-biased fan will admit that.

I don't think Becker would win more than maybe one Wimbledon if he grew up side by side with Petros unless he won one or two as a teenager before Petros primed. But both in their prime years I think Petros beats him every year except maybe 2000 assuming Boris didn't fall of the rails hypothetically.

 

[Mainad]

Murray wouldn't beat any well playing version of Novak on grass, any non-biased fan will admit that.

Well, if that's the case, it merely begs the question why Djokovic was not able to play his best version when facing Murray on grass (straight sets defeats in both the 2012 Olympics and 2013 Wimby final).

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

I don't think Becker would win more than maybe one Wimbledon if he grew up side by side with Petros unless

That’s the thing. Becker won his Wimblies as 17,18, 21. 92 Pete against 89 Becker is maybe arguable but even here I would favour Boris.

 

[Razer]

Murray wouldn't beat any well playing version of Novak on grass, any non-biased fan will admit that.

I don't think Becker would win more than maybe one Wimbledon if he grew up side by side with Petros unless he won one or two as a teenager before Petros primed. But both in their prime years I think Petros beats him every year except maybe 2000 assuming Boris didn't fall of the rails hypothetically.

Becker was almost 4 years older to Pete. What is the guarantee that Becker if aged same and already a 2 time champ before Pete won his first title would never beat Pete even once in Pete's prime? Boris did not fall of the rails in 95-96 so 4 years later he could still be a force in 2000, Becker defeated Sampras at Stuttgart and Sampras after that match said "Becker is the best indoor player I've ever played". So I dont think he would fall off the rails that easily, maybe being 4 years younger would benefit him?

 

[AgassiSuperSlam11]

fields strength in this case is referring to top 20 players playing. When you have very few playing, that prestige/importance goes down. The YEC, not the AO was the 4th most important event in those years in 83/84.

there can be a lot of difference in one year. Like I said Edberg was 18 at that time and ended the year ranked #20.

Wimbledon 1985 had full strength fields with Curren playing amazing to knock out Connors and Mac.
Form dipped in final, but Becker still had to play well to beat him.

Field Strength vs Who you actually beat are two different things. I never was a major fan of the term "Vulture" as I won't knock Federer for winning the FO without beating Nadal in 2009. Federer defeated the player who beat Nadal. However, often people who use the "field strength" often then fail to give credit for players winning a tournament when they don't play against those players who lose early. For example, many knock Marc Rosset when he won the 1992 Olympics Gold Medal. The only major name that Rosset defeated was Goran who still was years away from winning Wimbledon. However, in that draw there was Courier, Becker. Sampras, Edberg, Chang, Bruguera and Muster. You seem to be playing it both ways not enough top 20 but Edberg who would win a slam as a teenager was too "green" and so what he beat Mcenroe, 2-time champion Kriek, and also Lendl.

As far as Connors, Mac, and Becker those are triangle theories that doesn't translate into wins. Sure, Becker had to play well to beat Curren who beat both Connors and Mac. That doesn't necessarily mean that the specific matchups with Mcenroe and Connors would be any easier. Federer owned players that gave Nadal some difficulty as Davydenko. Becker simply deserves a degree of credit for winning 7 consecutive bo5 matches at the age of 17 regardless who he played. Michael Chang had to go through Sampras, Lendl, and Edberg to win his FO at the age of 17. Chang had the more notable wins but Becker the very next year won the tournament again proving it wasn't fluke. Wilander won the AO again proving it wasn't a fluke. I won't cheapen any of those wins.

The fact remains with all these great players Wilander is only 1 of 3 ATP players to win 2 or more slams in three different surfaces. Wilander was 15-12 in bo5 finals and after becoming #1 couldn't replicate his previous success. There are things about his career that can be questioned but I don't think his 7 slam wins are one of them.

If you look at the quality of opponents that Wilander defeated to win those two titles and compare it other GS wins it still holds weight. Especially when some modern GS champs have won titles without defeating 1 Top 10 player let alone a GS champion. Mcenroe was the reigning Wimbledon champion and Kriek was the 2-time defending AO champion when Wilander defeated both; yet one must believe an absurd argument that due to lack of field strength and top 20 players that Wilander's two titles aren't as important?

 

[a10best]

You should watch the 91 final before talking about inexcusable. Stich was GOATing that day.

I remember Stich redlining his way through. But usually an all-time great figures out a one-off player in a BO5.
What am I thinking? These two greats can have a bad final or an opponent on a roll. I have a lot of respect for their achievements.

Djokovic & Fed had losses in master events to a top 30 player but in a slam they comfortably dispose of the same player.

 

[a10best]

You should read this part BTW, I tend to agree I don't think winning slams in multiple surfaces by default makes you better than another player. Wilander has the multiple surface edge over Becker and weeks at #1 and yet Becker still has a decent argument over Wilander.

Nonetheless, what Wilander did was a major accomplishment as Ivan Lendl did compete in those "weak AO fields" and failed to win 1 Grass slam in either AO or Wimbledon. In fact, Wilander did beat Lendl in straight sets in the AO final in 1983.

Wilander had some classic 5-set matches. Loved the matches against Mac or Becker.

 

[NonP]

I knew the H2H was lopsided in non-slam events. I'm going by all-time greatest players not because of H2H career against one another, winning Davis cup matches, or trivial smaller tournaments.
Edberg outplayed Becker in slams where it counts the most.
Tennis greatness is determined by the number of slams you win. Each won 6. Then it's who you beat in the slams H2H. In 3 of Edberg's six slams he defeated Becker.
Becker was definitely a force but his slam final loss to Stich was inexcusable as was Edberg's loss to Chang in the FO final.
Becker was 6-5 in slam finals, Edberg was 6 and 4. Very close so it's probably a pick em'.

LOL at "trivial smaller tournaments." Dude, you don't get to rewrite history by today's standards and actual history tells us it's quite debatable whether the Slams were more important than the DC in the '80s especially for the Europeans. And here's another tiny factoid you don't know: at 38-3 Becker's DC record is arguably the best among all OE greats, with Borg (37-3) as his only serious rival. (Numerically speaking Bull holds a slightly better win % at 29-1, but he missed too many money ties to challenge these two.)

Another LOL at the "inexcusable" L to Stich at '91 Wimbledon. That Mike would be a formidable opponent for any grass-courter in history, quite possibly tougher than any version of Edberg on grass. And Stefan's L to an inspired Chang at '89 RG was no forgettable effort, either. You picked just about the worst examples to denigrate both here.

Not sure why people picking on Becker here. I can understand debates about him vs Edberg, but Murray? Seriously?

Boris' H2H vs. the top 10 (65.1%) is also in Ivan/Pistol/Big 3 territory, as opposed to Stefan's and Muzz's good but not great 46.2% and 53.0% respectively (and Mats' 48.1%, in case you're wondering). All great players, but if Becker brings his best he's gonna beat 'em more often than not everywhere except maybe on dirt.

 

[timnz]

Because Wilander's 2 AOs on grass were in weak fields (83 and 84 - especially 84). He didn't make it past QF at Wimbledon - which was the most important slam and THE grass slam.
Also Wilander's record indoors is weak for an ATG and that mattered quite a bit.

Becker is better than Wilander on grass, indoors, HC. Wilander is better on clay.

I agree Becker is above Wilander. Indoor Tennis was a big deal in the 80s and 90s and Becker record there is only second to Lendl and McEnroe

 

[Razer]

Nice match

Becker Is Davis Cup's Marathon Man : McEnroe Loses in 6 Hours 20 Minutes; West Germans Lead, 2-0

The paths of John McEnroe and Boris Becker have crossed just three times, yet they have produced two outstanding tennis matches.

www.latimes.com

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Boris' H2H vs. the top 10 (65.1%) is also in Ivan/Pistol/Big 3 territory, as opposed to Stefan's and Muzz's good but not great 46.2% and 53.0% respectively (and Mats' 48.1%, in case you're wondering). All great players, but if Becker brings his best he's gonna beat 'em more often than not everywhere except maybe on dirt.

Definitely. His H2H against basically all great/good players was positive or equal apart from Lendl/Pistol/Andre.

Ivanisevic 10-9
Edberg 25-10
Connors 6-0
McEnroe 8-2
Stich 8-4
Chang 5-1
Courier 6-1
Gilbert 6-4
Wilander 7-3
Noah 4-2
Mecir 7-2
Korda 6-0
Muster 2-1
krajicek 4-4
Kafelnikov 4-2
Hewitt 1-0
Rafter 2-1
Henman 2-0
Kiefer 2-0
Bruguera 2-2

His problem was more that he was not always consistent enough to beat the players he should have beaten.

Anywho, he is nevertheless clearly greater than Murray and also slightly ahead of Stefan.

 

[a10best]

LOL at "trivial smaller tournaments." Dude, you don't get to rewrite history by today's standards and actual history tells us it's quite debatable whether the Slams were more important than the DC in the '80s especially for the Europeans. And here's another tiny factoid you don't know: at 38-3 Becker's DC record is arguably the best among all OE greats, with Borg (37-3) as his only serious rival. (Numerically speaking Bull holds a slightly better win % at 29-1, but he missed too many money ties to challenge these two.)

Another LOL at the "inexcusable" L to Stich at '91 Wimbledon. That Mike would be a formidable opponent for any grass-courter in history, quite possibly tougher than any version of Edberg on grass. And Stefan's L to an inspired Chang at '89 RG was no forgettable effort, either. You picked just about the worst examples to denigrate both here.


Boris' H2H vs. the top 10 (65.1%) is also in Ivan/Pistol/Big 3 territory, as opposed to Stefan's and Muzz's good but not great 46.2% and 53.0% respectively (and Mats' 48.1%, in case you're wondering). All great players, but if Becker brings his best he's gonna beat 'em more often than not everywhere except maybe on dirt.

Davis cup, Olympics,, meh. Those are personal achievements. No rankings, no points, no big money. He could win 50 or 100 of em'. Just personal super exo's
Stich; yeah, no shame losing to Stich or Edberg losing to Chang who made addt'l slam finals. It was an Ai bot that wrote that excerpt.
Becker bringing his best? except in slam finals against Edberg.

 

[Topspin_80]

Federer, Djokovic, Nadal, Gonzales, Laver, Rosewall, Sampras, Borg, Tilden, Budge, McEnroe, Agassi, Lendl, Connors, Kramer, Vines, Perry, Lacoste, Cochet, Becker

Honorable mention: Edberg, Wilander, Hoad, Riggs, Johnston, Newcombe

Borotra should be there as well.

He won 3 slams on grass and 1 on clay.

Neither Vines nor Becker won on clay.

Claiming greatness without having a win on clay, it's possible, but it's a little bit lame.

Borotra also won 9 slam doubles, and 5 slams in mixed.

Plus the Davis Cup 6x.

Borotra has a better resume than Kramer and Vines.

 

[crimson87]

This anglo centric narrative that puts W and the US open on a pedestal in any era has to stop. Wilander is an ATG through and through.

 

[Fiero425]

I agree Becker is above Wilander. Indoor Tennis was a big deal in the 80s and 90s and Becker record there is only second to Lendl and McEnroed.

Lendl was about as good indoors believe it or not & did it from the baseline! He did something only Martina Navratilova accomplished on the ladies. side; winning the YEC twice in the same calendar year in 1986! Both the WTA and ATP decided to move their YEC's; the men from Jan. to Nov. & for the ladies, ditto from March Vir. Slims Chp.! Lendl defeated Becker both times in str. sets & Navratilova beat Sukova in March, then Mandlikova in 4 sets in Nov.!

 

[abmk]

Field Strength vs Who you actually beat are two different things. I never was a major fan of the term "Vulture" as I won't knock Federer for winning the FO without beating Nadal in 2009. Federer defeated the player who beat Nadal. However, often people who use the "field strength" often then fail to give credit for players winning a tournament when they don't play against those players who lose early. For example, many knock Marc Rosset when he won the 1992 Olympics Gold Medal. The only major name that Rosset defeated was Goran who still was years away from winning Wimbledon. However, in that draw there was Courier, Becker. Sampras, Edberg, Chang, Bruguera and Muster. You seem to be playing it both ways not enough top 20 but Edberg who would win a slam as a teenager was too "green" and so what he beat Mcenroe, 2-time champion Kriek, and also Lendl.

As far as Connors, Mac, and Becker those are triangle theories that doesn't translate into wins. Sure, Becker had to play well to beat Curren who beat both Connors and Mac. That doesn't necessarily mean that the specific matchups with Mcenroe and Connors would be any easier. Federer owned players that gave Nadal some difficulty as Davydenko. Becker simply deserves a degree of credit for winning 7 consecutive bo5 matches at the age of 17 regardless who he played. Michael Chang had to go through Sampras, Lendl, and Edberg to win his FO at the age of 17. Chang had the more notable wins but Becker the very next year won the tournament again proving it wasn't fluke. Wilander won the AO again proving it wasn't a fluke. I won't cheapen any of those wins.

The fact remains with all these great players Wilander is only 1 of 3 ATP players to win 2 or more slams in three different surfaces. Wilander was 15-12 in bo5 finals and after becoming #1 couldn't replicate his previous success. There are things about his career that can be questioned but I don't think his 7 slam wins are one of them.

If you look at the quality of opponents that Wilander defeated to win those two titles and compare it other GS wins it still holds weight. Especially when some modern GS champs have won titles without defeating 1 Top 10 player let alone a GS champion. Mcenroe was the reigning Wimbledon champion and Kriek was the 2-time defending AO champion when Wilander defeated both; yet one must believe an absurd argument that due to lack of field strength and top 20 players that Wilander's two titles aren't as important?

I specified field strength here refers to # of top 20 players in the draw, , i.e reflecting on importance of event.
and Wilander's AOs can definitely be questioned as a full major given very few top 20 players in those 2 AOs. Also that he didn't even make the semi of Wimbledon on grass.
AO was not top 4 event in those years - 83 and 84. it does hold some weight, but definitely not a full major.

Same applies to Wim 73 - which was boycotted - don't consider that as full major.
AO in 2nd half of 70s or 81/82 as well.

I mean Davy won Doha 250 in 2010 beating Fed and Nadal b2b. excellent wins, but doesn't make it even a M1000.
I'm not saying Wilander's AOs were a fluke. They weren't. I'm saying AO wasn't a full major or top 4 event in 83/84.

 

[Wander]

Murray wouldn't beat any well playing version of Novak on grass, any non-biased fan will admit that.

How convenient that Novak was always playing really badly when Andy did actually play Novak on grass in... Let me see... a Wimbledon Final and an Olympics semi-final.

Lucky Andy!

 

[Wander]

This anglo centric narrative that puts W and the US open on a pedestal in any era has to stop. Wilander is an ATG through and through.

And this this is ignorant of the history of the game. Wilander is an ATG (vague term that anyone is free to interpret however they like) in my view too, but less accomplished than several players with fewer Major titles. It may be splitting hairs, but that's just how it is.

 

[Holmes]

Becker was almost 4 years older to Pete. What is the guarantee that Becker if aged same and already a 2 time champ before Pete won his first title would never beat Pete even once in Pete's prime? Boris did not fall of the rails in 95-96 so 4 years later he could still be a force in 2000, Becker defeated Sampras at Stuttgart and Sampras after that match said "Becker is the best indoor player I've ever played". So I dont think he would fall off the rails that easily, maybe being 4 years younger would benefit him?

I'm saying if they were the same age though. Both in their prime, I think Pete beats Boris 8-9/10 times.

 

[Holmes]

That’s the thing. Becker won his Wimblies as 17,18, 21. 92 Pete against 89 Becker is maybe arguable but even here I would favour Boris.

89 Boris beats 92 PETE imo. 93 Pete beats any Boris though imo

 

[Holmes]

Well, if that's the case, it merely begs the question why Djokovic was not able to play his best version when facing Murray on grass (straight sets defeats in both the 2012 Olympics and 2013 Wimby final).

Let me ask you this - do you believe those straight sets defeats truly represent their levels in relation to each other on grass?

 

[Mainad]

Let me ask you this - do you believe those straight sets defeats truly represent their levels in relation to each other on grass?

I don't really know but, I repeat, if they don't then why did Djokovic play so poorly against Murray in 2 big grass events he has always been motivated to try and win?

 

[penguin]

Good suggestion but he probably left Murray out due to his 3-8 record in slam finals. That won't cut it.

Lendl lost a lot of finals too and you put him in

 

[DSH]

Nastase

Nasty!

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

89 Boris beats 92 PETE imo. 93 Pete beats any Boris though imo

Well as I said he is my favourite here as well, however Pete 92 sometimes gets underrated.he straight-setted defending champion Stich in the quarters and losing a tough match to Goran is nothing to be ashamed of.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Lendl lost a lot of finals too and you put him in

8-11 is way better than 3-8 of course, I mean 5 more slams alone sets them worlds apart. And this does not even include that Lendl is light years ahead of Murray in every other important stat (weeks at No.1, YECs, tournament wins etc.).

 

[a10best]

Lendl lost a lot of finals too and you put him in

Lendl 8 wins & 11 losses.
Murray 3 wins & 8 losses.
nuff' said
If Lendl didn't coach Murray subtract 2 of Murrays wins.

 

[thrust]

should be there instead of nadal

0bviously, a joke!

 

[thrust]

He won wimbledon at 17, 18, so if those fellows are his age then they get pwned by Teenage Becker
He was beating Sampras Indoors sometimes even in mid 90s, he has a winning h2h indoors over Sampras, Ivanisevic, Edberg, so what difference would it make if they were born with them?

Becker has his own fast court skillsets where he is alpha in any era, but Murray doesnt not have 1 surface where he stood out. Roger at 34 straight setted Murray on his best surface, that says everything that we need to know.

 

[thrust]

Becker never ended a yeat at #1 has many fewer weeks at #1 than Edberg. Never won a clay court title or reached a final at the FO, losing his only semi to Edberg in Paris. Stefan beat Becker in two of their 3 Wimbledon finals. Becker though does hold a significan H-H, overall, vs Edberg.

 

[Fiero425]

Becker never ended a yeat at #1 has many fewer weeks at #1 than Edberg. Never won a clay court title or reached a final at the FO, losing his only semi to Edberg in Paris. Stefan beat Becker in two of their 3 Wimbledon finals. Becker though does hold a significan H-H, overall, vs Edberg.

It was said Becker leads the H2H due to headgames being played on Stefan! Becker might mimic "Edberg's kiss" to his wife was one of many tactics IIRC!

 

[Federev]

I don't really know but, I repeat, if they don't then why did Djokovic play so poorly against Murray in 2 big grass events he has always been motivated to try and win?

Not to mention the fact that Novak was playing well enough to reach a final at Wimby - and a semi-final at the Olympics.

But - losing to Murray - a Murray who played a better match than Novak did against Federer in 2012 on grass at both Wimby and at the OGs - means ...Novak wasn't playing well?

It's just circular reasoning IMO. "Novak lost to Murray, ergo Novak must be playing bad because ... he lost to Murray".

Murray played very well on grass in 2012-2013. More than well enough to beat Djokovic in his prime.

Fact is, Novak never beat peak Federer or Murray or - even Nadal (who peaked very ealry) - on grass.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

Not to mention the fact that Novak was playing well enough to reach a final at Wimby - and a semi-final at the Olympics.

But - losing to Murray - a Murray who played a better match than Novak did against Federer in 2012 on grass at both Wimby and at the OGs - means ...Novak wasn't playing well?

It's just circular reasoning IMO. "Novak lost to Murray, ergo Novak must be playing bad because ... he lost to Murray".

Murray played very well on grass in 2012-2013. More than well enough to beat Djokovic in his prime.

Fact is, Novak never beat peak Federer or Murray or - even Nadal (who peaked very ealry) - on grass.

I like the cut of your jib.

 

[Federev]

I like the cut of your jib.

Lol…I had to look that phrase up (even tho I’ve used a jib)) but …thanks!

 

[Fiero425]

Not to mention the fact that Novak was playing well enough to reach a final at Wimby - and a semi-final at the Olympics.

But - losing to Murray - a Murray who played a better match than Novak did against Federer in 2012 on grass at both Wimby and at the OGs - means ...Novak wasn't playing well?

It's just circular reasoning IMO. "Novak lost to Murray, ergo Novak must be playing bad because ... he lost to Murray".

Murray played very well on grass in 2012-2013. More than well enough to beat Djokovic in his prime.

Fact is, Novak never beat peak Federer or Murray or - even Nadal (who peaked very ealry) - on grass.

What people refuse to recognize is how consistent Novak has been over the many years of his career! I think it astonishing 1st of all how he overcame the lead of Fedal @ 20-17-12 after he won '16 FO IIRC! He had already had 1 season winning 3 majors! Most probably thought that would be his highlight reel after 2011! He outdid it in 2015 w/ 3 more majors & added 5th YEC to his collection! He once again outdid himself in 2021, well over 30 y/o winning 3 more majors, but this time 1 match from a CYGS! I'm bringing this up because of expectations! Even his "Hatah's" expect him to win even though almost 36 years old! IMO, you can't win them all even though Novak's tried his best by overtaking most of the top records over Fedal in record time! He's adding to his weeks @ #1; now at 386 wks.! I think the most amazing is how he's taken over Wimbledon when that was supposed to be Federer's sanctuary, owning Cntr. Crt.! Hard to believe he's just 1 behind Fed's record 8 titles! I look forward to Wimbledon and the USO!

 

[RF-18]

Not to mention the fact that Novak was playing well enough to reach a final at Wimby - and a semi-final at the Olympics.

But - losing to Murray - a Murray who played a better match than Novak did against Federer in 2012 on grass at both Wimby and at the OGs - means ...Novak wasn't playing well?

It's just circular reasoning IMO. "Novak lost to Murray, ergo Novak must be playing bad because ... he lost to Murray".

Murray played very well on grass in 2012-2013. More than well enough to beat Djokovic in his prime.

Fact is, Novak never beat peak Federer or Murray or - even Nadal (who peaked very ealry) - on grass.

You really need to stop with this "never beat peak" this or that. You can't just pick and choose how you see it fit. Cause everyone can twist stuff to perfectly suit their narrative.

First of all, this peak of Nadal or Federer on grass that you are referring to, when was Djokovic supposed to beat these supposed versions? He never even had a chance to play them. He played Nadal in 2007 and actually served him a breadstick to take the first set, but then got injured and had to retire. What can we draw from this? How can a much worse version of Djokovic do this to, in your estimation, peak Nadal, but a more mature and more experienced Djokovic wouldnt be able to? Just food for thought.

Second of all, with your reasoning Nadal, Federer nor Murray ever did beat peak Djokovic on grass either. 2012-2013 was definitely not peak Djokovic, or you gonna say it was? Because if you say that, then I will easily turn the tables and decide that actually 2011 and 2015 was peak Djokovic on grass. And they never beat this Novak.

Now, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with all I said here, I'm just showcasing how easy it is to shut down the narratives some of you are pursuing.

All wins are legit and you prepare for matches accordingly. There is no whatabouism here at this level. You people are treating elite professionals like some video game characters where you can apply points based on experience ppints and levels.

I 've seen some in this thread shut down Murray cause he supposedly didn't beat a well playing Novak. So? Djokovic knew exactly what was at stake when he went out on court that day. Federer and Nadal knew as well when they played Djokovic. There are no excuses. You go out to win and prepare for it, you analyze your opponent, and if you don't match the level of your opponent then well tough luck. Unfortunately there are no time machines for us to Explore how these time travel version of said players would fare against eachother. There is no way you can prove Djokovic is not gonna beat versions of 2006 or what ever year you choose for these players. And we can't prove Djokovic would beat them either. What we have is matches happening in real time, then there are achievements wich shows who was the best player both on that day and tournament.

 

[Federev]

You really need to stop with this "never beat peak" this or that. You can't just pick and choose how you see it fit. Cause everyone can twist stuff to perfectly suit their narrative.

First of all, this peak of Nadal or Federer on grass that you are referring to, when was Djokovic supposed to beat these supposed versions? He never even had a chance to play them. He played Nadal in 2007 and actually served him a breadstick to take the first set, but then got injured and had to retire. What can we draw from this? How can a much worse version of Djokovic do this to, in your estimation, peak Nadal, but a more mature and more experienced Djokovic wouldnt be able to? Just food for thought.

Second of all, with your reasoning Nadal, Federer nor Murray ever did beat peak Djokovic on grass either. 2012-2013 was definitely not peak Djokovic, or you gonna say it was? Because if you say that, then I will easily turn the tables and decide that actually 2011 and 2015 was peak Djokovic on grass. And they never beat this Novak.

Now, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with all I said here, I'm just showcasing how easy it is to shut down the narratives some of you are pursuing.

All wins are legit and you prepare for matches accordingly. There is no whatabouism here at this level. You people are treating elite professionals like some video game characters where you can apply points based on experience ppints and levels.

I 've seen some in this thread shut down Murray cause he supposedly didn't beat a well playing Novak. So? Djokovic knew exactly what was at stake when he went out on court that day. Federer and Nadal knew as well when they played Djokovic. There are no excuses. You go out to win and prepare for it, you analyze your opponent, and if you don't match the level of your opponent then well tough luck. Unfortunately there are no time machines for us to Explore how these time travel version of said players would fare against eachother. There is no way you can prove Djokovic is not gonna beat versions of 2006 or what ever year you choose for these players. And we can't prove Djokovic would beat them either. What we have is matches happening in real time, then there are achievements wich shows who was the best player both on that day and tournament.

I disagree with this mainly because we do know how they did in time periods and matches w each other.

And because age is a real factor and affects athletes because athletics is … physical.

Novak had no reason to lose to Fed in 2012 as a defending champ and world #1 in his mid-20s vs an almost 31-year-old Federer. Except for this: He lost because - I believe- the closer Federer is to his peak years, the harder it is for Novak to beat him. Especially on grass.

The timing of wins and losses in their H2H clearly reflects this. Look it up if you don't know it already.

But I imagine in true TTW fashion, we will disagree and go back and forth forever.

So let’s just agree to disagree?

 

[Federev]

What people refuse to recognize is how consistent Novak has been over the many years of his career! I think it astonishing 1st of all how he overcame the lead of Fedal @ 20-17-12 after he won '16 FO IIRC! He had already had 1 season winning 3 majors! Most probably thought that would be his highlight reel after 2011! He outdid it in 2015 w/ 3 more majors & added 5th YEC to his collection! He once again outdid himself in 2021, well over 30 y/o winning 3 more majors, but this time 1 match from a CYGS! I'm bringing this up because of expectations! Even his "Hatah's" expect him to win even though almost 36 years old! IMO, you can't win them all even though Novak's tried his best by overtaking most of the top records over Fedal in record time! He's adding to his weeks @ #1; now at 386 wks.! I think the most amazing is how he's taken over Wimbledon when that was supposed to be Federer's sanctuary, owning Cntr. Crt.! Hard to believe he's just 1 behind Fed's record 8 titles! I look forward to Wimbledon and the USO!

Novak will likely beat Federer’s Wimbledon record and thus bury Sampras’ too.

It will never make him a better grass court player IMO.

Russell has more rings than Jordan. I don’t think he’s better.

 

[Holmes]

Not to mention the fact that Novak was playing well enough to reach a final at Wimby - and a semi-final at the Olympics.

But - losing to Murray - a Murray who played a better match than Novak did against Federer in 2012 on grass at both Wimby and at the OGs - means ...Novak wasn't playing well?

It's just circular reasoning IMO. "Novak lost to Murray, ergo Novak must be playing bad because ... he lost to Murray".

Murray played very well on grass in 2012-2013. More than well enough to beat Djokovic in his prime.

Fact is, Novak never beat peak Federer or Murray or - even Nadal (who peaked very ealry) - on grass.

Yea Novak was really lucky to beat Grandparer and squeak past Grampdal on grass. This is nice headcanon, while over in reality, Novak beat Fed in 2 years he said he was a better player than ever before.