What's the deal with Sampras' losses at Queens?

[lessthanjake]

Sampras' dominance of Wimbledon from 1993-2000 was unparalleled. He won all but one Wimbledon in that timeframe, meaning he had like a 52-1 record at Wimbledon in those years. Because of this, many have called him the greatest grass courter of all time.

However, it has occurred to me that Sampras frequently lost on grass during that time at Queens, the other grass court tournament he played. Here's how he fared in those years at Queens:

1993: Lost in the 2nd Round (after having a bye) to Grant Stafford
1994: Lost in the Finals to Todd Martin
1995: Won the title
1996: Did not participate
1997: Lost in the Quarterfinals to Bjorkman
1998: Lost in the 3rd Round to Todd Woodforde
1999: Won the title
2000: Lost in the Finals to Lleyton Hewitt

So Sampras was 21-5 at Queens during the same time in which he only lost one match at Wimbledon. Why is this? Did he not try very hard at Queens? I find that hard to believe. But he was virtually unbeatable at Wimbledon. How did he only win Queens twice during that time period? If he is the greatest grass court player ever (which I believe he probably is) then why did he have such an unimpressive record at Queens?

In contrast, during Federer's current 7 year run at Wimbledon, he has played Halle and never lost a match there, winning the tournament 5 times (and skipping it twice). As such, Federer is 72-1 on grass in the last 7 years. Sampras was 73-6 on grass during his dominant 8 years. Why did Sampras lose more on grass? And don't say it is because of greater grass court players in the 90s. Sampras' losses came against Grant Stafford, Todd Martin, Todd Woodforde, Bjorkman, Hewitt, and Krajicek. Only Hewitt and Krajicek were truly great grass court players.

 

[zagor]

Sampras basically treated Queens like a simply warm-up event where he could get a few grass wins under his belt,nothing more than that.

Also Sampras was ultimate "slams only matter" guy,his entire career was about peaking at slams,winning the big ones because they're the ones that matter,the ones his career will be judged on.The fact that he has more slams than masters should tell you something.

Since 2007 Fed is basically trying to do the same as Pete,pace himself for peaking at slams,that is especially visible in 2008 and 2009.I mean before Madrid this year the last masters he won was Cincy 2 years ago but he's riding at the moment on a streak of reaching 6(!) slam finals in a row.

 

[Shaolin]

OP: You left out Sampras' most famous/shocking loss at Queens.

 

[Fedfan1234]

Sampras basically treated Queens like a simply warm-up event where he could get a few grass wins under his belt,nothing more than that.

Also Sampras was ultimate "slams only matter" guy,his entire career was about peaking at slams,winning the big ones because they're the ones that matter,the ones his career will be judged on.The fact that he has more slams than masters should tell you something.

Since 2007 Fed is basically trying to do the same as Pete,pace himself for peaking at slams,that is especially visible in 2008 and 2009.I mean before Madrid this year the last masters he won was Cincy 2 years ago but he's riding at the moment on a streak of reaching 6(!) slam finals in a row.

I agree that Sampras did not take these matches as serious as Wimbledon. I think in the 90's a lot of players got injured a lot including Sampras, he was only making sure to preserve his best for Wimbledon. And if you don't give it all you are likely not going to win.
The reason why Federer played better during these tournaments is because he never really got a serious injury. Same for a lot of the current top players. It sure made tennis a whole lot more interesting. Federer still likes to win these tournaments I think but he never reaches his peak performance at these tournaments anymore. Whether this is because of preperation for the slams, I am not so sure. He might not be able to motivate himself enough at these events.
But there sure is a big difference now in Federer at slams and Federer at other ATP tournaments.

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

Pete Sampras at times was the Serena Williams of the ATP tour during the 90s - going out to no names and lesser ranked players in smaller events he'd never lose to in slams, just to come in and dominate once the slams rolled around.

OP: You left out Sampras' most famous/shocking loss at Queens.

That would be the GOAT Mark Keil.

 

[NonP]

What zagor said.

Two more things:

1) The grass courts at the Queen's Club are considered faster than the pure rye grass courts in SW19. That and the best-of-3 as opposed to best-of-5 matches make upsets more likely at the Queen's.

2) The Queen's generally attracts more top players than Halle, and if Federer had been competing at the Queen's instead his grass-court streak might have come to an end before 2008 Wimbledon. After all he didn't win every event he entered from '04-'07.

 

[rwn]

Because Sampras always was in the final stages of the French Open, he simply didn´t have enough time to prepare for Queens :twisted:

 

[EtePras]

Isn't it obvious the guy was terrible on grass and kept on getting lucky cakewalk draws at Wimbledon? But of course his fanboys will claim he only lost because he wasn't trying to win! Like any of you guys would skimp on the opportunity to make hundreds of thousands of dollars by playing a few tennis matches ROFL!

 

[Gizo]

What zagor said.

Two more things:

1) The grass courts at the Queen's Club are considered faster than the pure rye grass courts in SW19. That and the best-of-3 as opposed to best-of-5 matches make upsets more likely at the Queen's.

In the 90s before the grass at Wimbledon was slowed down in 2001, the grass at Queen's always used to be slightly slower and higher bouncing than the Wimbledon grass. I believe that was a deliberate decision by the Queen's organisers to try and entice more players who were more comfortable on clay and slower surfaces to enter their event.
Muster entered Queen's in 1996, reaching the last 4 and playing very well indeed. However he never won a match at Wimbledon. Lendl always looked far more comfortable on the Queen's grass. His destruction of Becker in the 1990 Queen's final was labelled by the late, great British commentator Dan Maskell as one of the finest grass court performances he had ever season. On the faster Wimbledon grass however he struggled far more against Becker and lost all 3 of their matches there.

 

[NonP]

In the 90s before the grass at Wimbledon was slowed down in 2001, the grass at Queen's always used to be slightly slower and higher bouncing than the Wimbledon grass. I believe that was a deliberate decision by the Queen's organisers to try and entice more players who were more comfortable on clay and slower surfaces to enter their event.
Muster entered Queen's in 1996, reaching the last 4 and playing very well indeed. However he never won a match at Wimbledon. Lendl always looked far more comfortable on the Queen's grass. His destruction of Becker in the 1990 Queen's final was labelled by the late, great British commentator Dan Maskell as one of the finest grass court performances he had ever season. On the faster Wimbledon grass however he struggled far more against Becker and lost all 3 of their matches there.

Gizo, what's often forgotten is that Wimbledon was being slowed down as early as in the '90s. I'll need some time to dig up relevant articles, but if I recall correctly Sampras and Becker were already playing with fuzzier balls in the '95 final.

That said, your main point is well taken as the Queen's grass has remained virtually unchanged with respect to the Wimbledon lawns. I'll see if I can find any evidence for that, too.

 

[Gizo]

Gizo, what's often forgotten is that Wimbledon was being slowed down as early as in the '90s. I'll need some time to dig up relevant articles, but if I recall correctly Sampras and Becker were already playing with fuzzier balls in the '95 final.

That said, your main point is well taken as the Queen's grass has remained virtually unchanged with respect to the Wimbledon lawns. I'll see if I can find any evidence for that, too.

You raise a good point that I had completely forgotten about. I think I remember now that Sampras said in his autobiography that the Wimbledon grass was slowed down in 1995 but that virtually no-one noticed because so many players continued to serve-volley on both 1st and 2nd serves. Even in 2001 with the introduction of pure rye grass, hardly anyone noticed either because of the wet, damp conditions that year, although it's safe to say that pretty much everyone noticed in 2002.

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

Where are all the Sampras fanboys at? :???:

 

[the green god]

Where are all the Sampras fanboys at? :???:

I would not call myself a fanboy, but how many slam finals has Mr. Blake been in.

 

[8PAQ]

Because Sampras always was in the final stages of the French Open, he simply didn´t have enough time to prepare for Queens :twisted:

LOL. Yeah I am sure he needed to do a lot of soul searching after all those tough loses in the FO finals.

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

I would not call myself a fanboy, but how many slam finals has Mr. Blake been in.

Same number as you and I....don't see how that makes him any lesser of a person.

 

[GameSampras]

Short and Simple?


He did win there a few times but he mainly focused on slams as his career progressed more and more and prepared more for Wimbeldon instead. Sampras focus was you can beat me in queens, I will destroy where it matters most at Wimbeldon


why doesnt Fed focus today on the smaller tournaments as he did before? Hell hes only won one other tournament besides the slams this year hasnt he? He only won Madrid the other two were RG and Wimby but he has entred many more tournaments.


Its a been there done that attitude and focus more on the big ones

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

Short and Simple?

He did win there a few times but he mainly focused on slams as his career progressed more and more and prepared more for Wimbeldon instead. Sampras focus was you can beat me in queens, I will destroy where it matters most at Wimbeldon

why doesnt Fed focus today on the smaller tournaments as he did before? Hell hes only one other tournament besides the slams this year hasnt he? He only won Madrid the other two were RG and Wimby.

Its a been there done that attitude

What did Pete do so differently at Queens than he did at Wimbledon? Tactics wise I mean? I'm assuming you saw all of his matches in Queens, the wins and losses, since you're such a big Pete fan, did the guys that beat him play the matches of their lives, or was Pete just having a lot of off days?

 

[GameSampras]

What did Pete do so differently at Queens than he did at Wimbledon? Tactics wise I mean? I'm assuming you saw all of his matches in Queens, the wins and losses, since you're such a big Pete fan, did the guys that beat him play the matches of their lives, or was Pete just having a lot of off days?

Im sure if Pete wanted to gather 6-7 queens titles he could. He was that good on grass. He was saving himself for what really mattered..

Im not saying its right.. I wish Pete would have focused on EVERY TOURNAMENT he entered and had complete and utter domination of every tournament he could.. But he didnt. He wasnt that type of player or I guess that type of guy to begin with. As long he had the number 1 ranking at the end of the year, I guess thats all that mattered.


Fed is adopting these same strategies as well as his career progesses if you notice it too.. Back at his peak he was winning every tournament. Outside of his 2 slams this years hes only won Madrid. I think it helps you with your longevity as well in winning majors also. Im sure Fed wants to hang on another 2-3 season or so if he can. IT will be tougher to do if adopted the same 2006 winning every tournament in sight attitude

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

Im sure if Pete wanted to gather 6-7 queens titles he could. He was that good on grass. He was saving himself for what really mattered..

Im not saying its right.. I wish Pete would have focused on EVERY TOURNAMENT he entered and had complete and utter domination of every tournament he could.. But he didnt. He wasnt that type of player or I guess that type of guy to begin with. As long he had the number 1 ranking at the end of the year, I guess thats all that mattered.


Fed is adopting these same strategies as well as his career progesses if you notice it too.. Back at his peak he was winning every tournament. Outside of his 2 slams this years hes only won Madrid. I think it helps you with your longevity as well in winning majors also. Im sure Fed wants to hang on another 2-3 season or so if he can. IT will be tougher to do if adopted the same 2006 winning every tournament in sight attitude

OK...when Fed loses, it's b/c his BH breaks down considerably...and Fed loses to the likes of Djokovic, Murray, even Simon was a top 8 player last yr. Very rarely does Fed lose to MUCH lesser players on non clay surfaces.

So what went wrong for Pete to lose to Stafford, Bjorkman, and Woodforde on grass? Just he didn't care? It's gotta be more than that, did you watch those matches? I just want to know how Pete loses to those guys on grass, his favorite surface, if he's the Grass Court GOAT.

 

[Shaolin]

That would be the GOAT Mark Keil.

Nailed it! Not too sure about that GOAT status though

 

[Cesc Fabregas]

OK...when Fed loses, it's b/c his BH breaks down considerably...and Fed loses to the likes of Djokovic, Murray, even Simon was a top 8 player last yr. Very rarely does Fed lose to MUCH lesser players on non clay surfaces.

So what went wrong for Pete to lose to Stafford, Bjorkman, and Woodforde on grass? Just he didn't care? It's gotta be more than that, did you watch those matches? I just want to know how Pete loses to those guys on grass, his favorite surface, if he's the Grass Court GOAT.

Its the risk reward balance, Pete obviously felt that Queens is not worth breaking his neck over.

 

[Cesc Fabregas]

OK...when Fed loses, it's b/c his BH breaks down considerably...and Fed loses to the likes of Djokovic, Murray, even Simon was a top 8 player last yr. Very rarely does Fed lose to MUCH lesser players on non clay surfaces.

So what went wrong for Pete to lose to Stafford, Bjorkman, and Woodforde on grass? Just he didn't care? It's gotta be more than that, did you watch those matches? I just want to know how Pete loses to those guys on grass, his favorite surface, if he's the Grass Court GOAT.

Its the risk reward balance, Pete obviously felt that Queens is not worth breaking his neck over.

 

[Cesc Fabregas]

OK...when Fed loses, it's b/c his BH breaks down considerably...and Fed loses to the likes of Djokovic, Murray, even Simon was a top 8 player last yr. Very rarely does Fed lose to MUCH lesser players on non clay surfaces.

So what went wrong for Pete to lose to Stafford, Bjorkman, and Woodforde on grass? Just he didn't care? It's gotta be more than that, did you watch those matches? I just want to know how Pete loses to those guys on grass, his favorite surface, if he's the Grass Court GOAT.

Its the risk reward balance, Pete obviously felt that Queens is not worth breaking his neck over.

 

[Cesc Fabregas]

OK...when Fed loses, it's b/c his BH breaks down considerably...and Fed loses to the likes of Djokovic, Murray, even Simon was a top 8 player last yr. Very rarely does Fed lose to MUCH lesser players on non clay surfaces.

So what went wrong for Pete to lose to Stafford, Bjorkman, and Woodforde on grass? Just he didn't care? It's gotta be more than that, did you watch those matches? I just want to know how Pete loses to those guys on grass, his favorite surface, if he's the Grass Court GOAT.

Its the risk reward balance, Pete obviously felt that Queens is not worth breaking his neck over.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

He was saving himself for what really mattered..

Im not saying its right.. I wish Pete would have focused on EVERY TOURNAMENT he entered and had complete and utter domination of every tournament he could.. But he didnt. He wasnt that type of player or I guess that type of guy to begin with. As long he had the number 1 ranking at the end of the year, I guess thats all that mattered.

Agreed; Sampras understood the importance of the slams above all else, so aside from using Queens as a glorifed practice session, where on some occasions, he would take it to it's conclusion, I believe he was saving the best for the best at Wimbledon. A logical decision.

For the record, it was possible for Sampras (for the reasons stated above) to lose to lesser players, but his motives and circumstances DO NOT automatically apply to Federer. There is no "one-player-motive-or-failing-fits-all." That is not sound reasoning at all.

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

Its the risk reward balance, Pete obviously felt that Queens is not worth breaking his neck over.

Its the risk reward balance, Pete obviously felt that Queens is not worth breaking his neck over.

Its the risk reward balance, Pete obviously felt that Queens is not worth breaking his neck over.

Its the risk reward balance, Pete obviously felt that Queens is not worth breaking his neck over.

Could you repeat that? I don't think we got it the first 4 times.

 

[GameSampras]

Its the risk reward balance, Pete obviously felt that Queens is not worth breaking his neck over.

Agreed.. Sampras defeated better players when he HAD to.. He defeated the likes of Becker, Goran, Andre, Courier and down the line all on grass. Way better players on grass than Bjorkman or Stafford. He destroys everyone put in his path at Wimbeldon, yet cant beat the likes of Bjorkman or Woodford? I think its obvious Pete wasnt putting too much stock into Queens.. We're talking the greatest grass court player thats ever lived with 7 wimbeldons in 8 years. I think its obvious pete was conserving his energy for wimbeldon.

 

[drwood]

Agreed.. Sampras defeated better players when he HAD to.. He defeated the likes of Becker, Goran, Andre, Courier and down the line all on grass. Way better players on grass than Bjorkman or Stafford. He destroys everyone put in his path at Wimbeldon, yet cant beat the likes of Bjorkman or Woodford? I think its obvious Pete wasnt putting too much stock into Queens.. We're talking the greatest grass court player thats ever lived with 7 wimbeldons in 8 years. I think its obvious pete was conserving his energy for wimbeldon.

True, but it only underscores the excellence of Federer on grass -- he doesn't lose to ANYONE -- even outside of Wimbledon. I didn't realize how badly Pete underachieved at non-Wimbledon grass court tournaments. If Fed matches his Wimbledon titles, that makes it all the more compelling that Fed is the grass GOAT.

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

Agreed.. Sampras defeated better players when he HAD to.. He defeated the likes of Becker, Goran, Andre, Courier and down the line all on grass. Way better players on grass than Bjorkman or Stafford. He destroys everyone put in his path at Wimbeldon, yet cant beat the likes of Bjorkman or Woodford? I think its obvious Pete wasnt putting too much stock into Queens.. We're talking the greatest grass court player thats ever lived with 7 wimbeldons in 8 years. I think its obvious pete was conserving his energy for wimbeldon.

So wait...did you watch the matches? Did you see that Pete wasn't trying as hard? What was he doing tactically so different from what he did at Wimbledon?

 

[GameSampras]

True, but it only underscores the excellence of Federer on grass -- he doesn't lose to ANYONE -- even outside of Wimbledon. I didn't realize how badly Pete underachieved at non-Wimbledon grass court tournaments. If Fed matches his Wimbledon titles, that makes it all the more compelling that Fed is the grass GOAT.

Fed doesnt lose to anyone huh?

Lets see he lost to Canas twice, Blake, Wawrinka, Karlovic, Fish, Murray ( who he destroyed at the USO), Djokovic Nadal a ton of times.. Hes lost to people..


Fed is the grass GOAT? Thats your opinion.. I dont have to believe that. I dont even think he is in the same area code as prime Pete at Wimbeldon.


And it doesnt underscore the excellence of Fed.. It just shows Fed put more emphasis on tournaments outside of slams then Pete did.. it doesnt mean he is better than Pete at Wimbeldon or the better grass court player in general. It means he put more emphasis on tourneys which werent slams

 

[GameSampras]

So wait...did you watch the matches? Did you see that Pete wasn't trying as hard? What was he doing tactically so different from what he did at Wimbledon?

I didnt catch all of them.. I did catch his loss to Woodforde though in 98.. Pete was playing horrible and it looked like a practice session for him and it was noticeable he wasnt putting much emphasis on the match. But then he turned it on come wimbeldon

 

[drwood]

Fed doesnt lose to anyone huh?

Lets see he lost to Canas twice, Blake, Wawrinka, Karlovic, Fish, Murray ( who he destroyed at the USO), Djokovic Nadal a ton of times.. Hes lost to people..


Fed is the grass GOAT? Thats your opinion.. I dont have to believe that. I dont even think he is in the same area code as prime Pete at Wimbeldon.


And it doesnt underscore the excellence of Fed.. It just shows Fed put more emphasis on tournaments outside of slams then Pete did.. it doesnt mean he is better than Pete at Wimbeldon or the better grass court player in general. It means he put more emphasis on tourneys which werent slams

What's Pete's longest grass court winning streak?
What's Fed's?
End of discussion

And no, Fed in his prime doesn't lose to ANYONE on GRASS -- all the losses you mentioned weren't on grass. Please read my posts more carefully.

 

[GameSampras]

What's Pete's longest grass court winning streak?
What's Fed's?
End of discussion

And no, Fed in his prime doesn't lose to ANYONE on GRASS -- all the losses you mentioned weren't on grass. Please read my posts more carefully.

So longer grass court winning streak automatically equates to "better"?


I see you only choose what you want to choose.


How about the fact sampras overrall had a bit of a tougher grass court field to contend with?

How about the fact he has won 7 wimbeldons in 8 years. How about the fact, Sampras in his prime NEVER lost to grinder like Nadal at wimbeldon whos game is actually more suited for clay?


Fed has a case on hardcourts. Pete is the superior grass player and I think most will agree.

You are the minority pal

 

[drakulie]

So wait...did you watch the matches? Did you see that Pete wasn't trying as hard? What was he doing tactically so different from what he did at Wimbledon?

GamesSampras has never seen a full sampras match. He has seen youtube highlights at most.

 

[drakulie]

How about the fact sampras overrall had a bit of a tougher grass court field to contend with?

which has already been proven he didn't have to face enroute to all his slams victories at Wimbledon. To add, lost to Federer, on grass, at center court Wimbledon.

Now, take this:

 

[Cesc Fabregas]

Federer's wins at Halle mean nothing, its a mickey mouse competition with week draws.

 

[GameSampras]

Federer's wins at Halle mean nothing, its a mickey mouse competition with week draws.

Apparently thats what makes Fed the grass court GOAT. LOL

His awesome wins at Halle and his "grass winning streak"

 

[drakulie]

Apparently thats what makes Fed the grass court GOAT. LOL

His awesome wins at Halle and his "grass winning streak"

 

[T. H. Park]

What did Pete do so differently at Queens than he did at Wimbledon? Tactics wise I mean? I'm assuming you saw all of his matches in Queens, the wins and losses, since you're such a big Pete fan, did the guys that beat him play the matches of their lives, or was Pete just having a lot of off days?

Not sure ... but it could be that Queens was best of 3? If Queens was a 5-setter then I am not sure. It is tough to beat the top players in any 5-setter usually.

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

Federer's wins at Halle mean nothing, its a mickey mouse competition with week draws.

Almost as weak as your spelling huh?

GameSampras, you single out how Pete won 7 of 8, Roger has won 6 of 7. He's beaten Nadal, beaten Roddick, beaten Hewitt on numerous occasions at Wimbledon. Like it or not, those are the best of this era on grass, and Fed has been the guy to stop them from furthering their own legacies.

7 straight Wimbledon finals. Pete never did that. Roger has.

Don't say that putting Fed over Pete is ludicrous, right now it's pretty close, and if Fed matches or passes Pete, there's no reason to say he isn't the Grass Court GOAT, other than ignorant fanboyism, by saying things like the grass court now is more like clay, which you stated recently. Also making idiotic statements like Fed could win 20 Wimbledons and not be GOAT doesn't help your case out that much. You aren't objective at all, just a fanboy, as such your opinion really means zilch on the grand scheme of things.

 

[T. H. Park]

Federer's wins at Halle mean nothing, its a mickey mouse competition with week draws.

Definitely not much compared to Wimbledon. Same with Queens w.r.t. weak draws.

But not sure, then, why Sampras could not do so well on his favorite surface with weak draws, while Federer never lost at Halle nor Wimbledon until last year after his rise to his prime.

Could it be that Sampras was not as consistent as Federer is on grass (or any other surface)?

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

Definitely not much compared to Wimbledon. Same with Queens w.r.t. weak draws.

But not sure, then, why Sampras could not do so well on his favorite surface with weak draws, while Federer never lost at Halle nor Wimbledon until last year after his rise to his prime.

Could it be that Sampras was not as consistent as Federer is on grass (or any other surface)?

No, Bjorkman, Stafford, and Woodforde are all examples of the strength and depth of the grass court era of the 90s, and would all be multiple time Wimbledon champs if they played in this clown era during their primes.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Gotta love how flaming worms it's way into making a so-called "point" in certain posts.

 

[drwood]

Fed has a case on hardcourts. Pete is the superior grass player and I think most will agree.

You are the minority pal

Even I agree...for now. My point was that if Fed matches Pete's total number of Wimbledons, then Fed is the grass GOAT. For now it is Sampras...barely.

 

[federerGOAT]

I disagree. The great Federer is clearly the grass GOAT now. Seven straight Wimbledon finals and a superior record on the surface that eclipese Sampras's stats, how can Fed not be the grass GOAT??

 

[GameSampras]

Even I agree...for now. My point was that if Fed matches Pete's total number of Wimbledons, then Fed is the grass GOAT. For now it is Sampras...barely.

Well I think is a difference between "better" and "more achieved" or like others would like to put as "greater".

But thats me.

I just feel Sampras' game was just customed made for grass. And a player overtaking someone elses accomplishments in a different era does not mean I have to believe Fed is better than Sampras.

Hell Fed could win 9 or 10 Wimbeldons for all I know.. But different circumstances, not to mention a different grass surface, different competition to play against and different styles of play to play against who knows.


Im pretty much going from a style of game point of view. In this case, I think Pete's game is customed made more for grass. Federer probably more customed made for various types of hardcourts. But who knows.. We dont have a time machine and we dont know how the h2h would have gone between the two..

I just dont believe more achieved equals, the "better player". when you are comparing eras.


I mean if Fed overtakes the 7 Wimby titles. On paper, Fed looks greater and achieved, does that mean he was the better grass court player?


Im sure someone will come along and eclipse the records even set by Fed. It will happen eventually

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

Ivanisevic's game is better made for grass. Does this mean he's better than Federer? :???:

 

[GameSampras]

Ivanisevic's game is better made for grass. Does this mean he's better than Federer? :???:

Not sure... We dont know how both would have matched up.. I think Goran would be a troubling problem (Prime Goran that is, 93, 95, 98 maybe and maybe even 01 when he won Wimby) for Roger. Goran was no joke at Wimbeldon and it took Pete from stopping him from getting more Wimbeldon titles.

On this grass, Fed would have the advantage.. On the old grass, I dunno.. Goran was a tough tough player especially at his peak. I think I might give Goran the edge to be honest on the old wimbeldon surface

 

[Chadwixx]

Wouldnt a head to head win push him over the top?

Goran lost to an young agassi on fast grass, pls stop this nonsense of him being a great. He did play the best wimbledon final of all time though vs rafter. Sorry but saying an agassi who couldnt serve over 100mph and didnt know how to volley is better than fed is silly. If agassi beat him, fed would have bageled him.

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

Not sure... We dont know how both would have matched up.. I think Goran would be a troubling problem (Prime Goran that is, 93, 95, 98 maybe and maybe even 01 when he won Wimby) for Roger. Goran was no joke at Wimbeldon and it took Pete from stopping him from getting more Wimbeldon titles.

On this grass, Fed would have the advantage.. On the old grass, I dunno.. Goran was a tough tough player especially at his peak. I think I might give Goran the edge to be honest on the old wimbeldon surface

Of course you would...:roll:

6 Wimbledons to 1 isn't enough, and the fact that Fed beat Ivanisevic in 2000 and 2001 isn't enough either...