Who is the Greatest Wimbledon player of all time?

[Towser83]

Becker went into semi retirement after 1997 Wimbledon. Becker actually said at the time that it would be his last Wimbledon. Becker then spent the next 2 years just playing smaller tournaments, and he decided to finish his career for good after one last crack at Wimbledon in 1999.

If I remember correctly, Becker played 30 matches in 1997 and went 19-11. In 1998 He played one or maybe 2 clay masters and played Halle but didn't play RG or wimbledon. Do you know the reason for this? Injury or just didn't enter?

You can pretty much throw a coin up in the air for Fed and Pete at both Flushing and Wimbledon when talking "greater"

Fed had an extra wimbledon final, but I could easily just as say Pete had a more competent grass field to contend with then the one Fed had for so many years So its arguable.

Yeah and I can say the top players in the world apart from Sampras couldn't play on grass, and now at least even Djokovic is a threat on it since it's be slowed and that's hurt Federer, so actually greater competition. That's why things like number of finals and dominace are things that can be used to judge rather than subjective criteria.

I would myself say it's a close one at both the USO and Wimby though. I definitely give Fed the edge at Wimby considering not only the extra final but how close he was to winning another title even when Nadal had him under his thumb, and got to give Pete the edge at USO for making 8 finals over 12 years (though I give Connors the top slot for winning on 3 surfaces and crazy consistancy, but Sampras is the best HC US champion)

 

[tennis_pro]

You can pretty much throw a coin up in the air for Fed and Pete at both Flushing and Wimbledon when talking "greater"

Fed had an extra wimbledon final, but I could easily just as say Pete had a more competent grass field to contend with then the one Fed had for so many years So its arguable.

No its not. Sampras competition on grass in the 90's is so overrated its not even funny. Henman? Ivanisevic? 30-year old Becker? And how exactly would they trouble prime Federer on grass again?

The only player from the 90's who would seriously trouble prime Federer on grass is Sampras himself (and vice versa). 7 Wimbledons (including 5 in a row and 7 finals in a row) + 1 final trumps 7 victories, thank you very much. Now you can go back to your lala land in which Sampras is better than Federer on grass.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

No its not. Sampras competition on grass in the 90's is so overrated its not even funny. Henman? Ivanisevic? 30-year old Becker?

And how exactly would they trouble prime Federer on grass again? The only player from the 90's who would seriously trouble prime Federer on grass is Sampras himself (and vice versa). 7 Wimbledons (including 5 in a row and 7 finals in a row) + 1 final trumps 7 victories, thank you very much. Now you can go back to your lala land in which Sampras is better than Federer on grass.

Agreed. Sampras's era is very weak if Krajicek can win Wimbledon :lol:

 

[Towser83]

No its not. Sampras competition on grass in the 90's is so overrated its not even funny. Henman? Ivanisevic? 30-year old Becker? And how exactly would they trouble prime Federer on grass again?

The only player from the 90's who would seriously trouble prime Federer on grass is Sampras himself (and vice versa). 7 Wimbledons (including 5 in a row and 7 finals in a row) + 1 final trumps 7 victories, thank you very much. Now you can go back to your lala land in which Sampras is better than Federer on grass.

Pretty much yeah. They're both on another level to even Becker (who's only serious competition in his Wimbledon wins was Edberg) and both would beat him most of the time along with everyone else. On fast grass, not sure Nadal would manage to beat Federer given that he almost blew the best chance ever in 2008 on slower higher bouncing grass.

 

[TMF]

Its pretty much the truth.

I mean going 35-16 for the year with ZERO titles.. What else can you call that exactly? Outside of the USO, Pete didn't exactly do much his final two years on tour

We are talking about Wimbeldon. The other surfaces and tournaments are irrelevant. Sampras was the best grass player in 2001 and Federer dethroned him. It signal the changing of the guard which turns out to be true.

 

[Mustard]

If I remember correctly, Becker played 30 matches in 1997 and went 19-11. In 1998 He played one or maybe 2 clay masters and played Halle but didn't play RG or wimbledon. Do you know the reason for this? Injury or just didn't enter?

Just didn't enter. As I mentioned before, Becker did say at the time of 1997 Wimbledon that it would be his last Wimbledon and that after 1997 he would only play in smaller tournaments, to just fade away until retirement. Becker did give some thought to entering the 1997 US Open, but a niggling injury convinced him not to. Becker also seriously thought about entering 1998 Wimbledon, but didn't. After mostly going through the motions for another year, he decided to play 1999 Wimbledon and then retire.

As for the French Open, Becker never went near there again after falling out with the Roland Garros officials in 1995 over the weather conditions, during and after his loss to Adrian Voinea in the third round.

 

[tennis_pro]

. In fact, I think Pete's best is better then ANY player in history on fast courts.

Good thing you added "I think" cause everyone else (except probably Sampras himself) thinks otherwise.

The problem with Fed and Sampras is that Federer brought his very best consistently for years while Sampras played at his best once in a blue moon. I could easily say that Safin's best beats Federer's best based on 2005 AO and you could take it as a valid arguement based solely on that example. How about the other 300 times that he lost, though?

Here's a fact for you - Sampras has NEVER played anyone as tough mentally as Nadal, Djokovic or even Federer (whose mental toughness is seriously underrated based on his FO meetings on clay...LIKE SAMPRAS WOULD DO ANY BETTER LOOOL). He would wilt like a shrimp if it got tight against someone who didn't lose their head repeatedly COUGH Ivanisevic COUGH Rafter 7-6 6-6 and 4-1 in the breaker COUGH

 

[Mustard]

Here's a fact for you - Sampras has NEVER played anyone as tough mentally as Nadal, Djokovic or even Federer (whose mental toughness is seriously underrated based on his FO meetings on clay...LIKE SAMPRAS WOULD DO ANY BETTER LOOOL). He would wilt like a shrimp if it got tight against someone who didn't lose their head repeatedly COUGH Ivanisevic COUGH Rafter 7-6 6-6 and 4-1 in the breaker COUGH

Um, Thomas Muster. You did say mental toughness. Just look at Muster's win-loss record in finals.

 

[90's Clay]

We are talking about Wimbeldon. The other surfaces and tournaments are irrelevant. Sampras was the best grass player in 2001 and Federer dethroned him. It signal the changing of the guard which turns out to be true.

Why was he the best grass player? Because of what he did the YEAR BEFORE? 2000 was 2000, 2001 was 2001. You dont judge a player's level because of how he played the year before ya know?

Goran was the best grass player in 2001. Hands down. Pete's level at wimbledon wasn't even par with Rafter's or Henman's that year.

 

[tennis_pro]

Um, Thomas Muster. You did say mental toughness. Just look at Muster's win-loss record in finals.

A clay courter, it didn't matter for Sampras as he was too busy losing in the 1st rounds on clay to complete nobodies.

 

[Towser83]

Just didn't enter. As I mentioned before, Becker did say at the time of 1997 Wimbledon that it would be his last Wimbledon and that after 1997 he would only play in smaller tournaments, to just fade away until retirement. Becker did give some thought to entering the 1997 US Open, but a niggling injury convinced him not to. Becker also seriously thought about entering 1998 Wimbledon, but didn't. After mostly going through the motions for another year, he decided to play 1999 Wimbledon and then retire.

As for the French Open, Becker never went near there again after falling out with the Roland Garros officials in 1995 over the weather conditions, during and after his loss to Adrian Voinea in the third round.

As always, thanks for the info Mustard

 

[TMF]

Why was he the best grass player? Because of what he did the YEAR BEFORE? 2000 was 2000, 2001 was 2001. You dont judge a player's level because of how he played the year before ya know?

Goran was the best grass player in 2001. Hands down. Pete's level at wimbledon wasn't even par with Rafter's or Henman's that year.

Because he was the 4 times defending champion while Goran was still slamless. He WAS the favorite to win Wimbledon again. Had he met Goran instead of Federer, I believe he would have won.

 

[tennis_pro]

Because he was the 4 times defending champion while Goran was still slamless. He WAS the favorite to win Wimbledon again. Had he met Goran instead of Federer, I believe he would have won.

Of course Sampras would've won. He would've straight setted Henman if he wanted to. The problem is that he ran into someone who actually didn't choke against him like Ivanisevic used to do on a huge scale against Sampras so Sampras was clueless.

 

[Mustard]

As always, thanks for the info Mustard

My pleasure.

Because he was the 4 times defending champion while Goran was still slamless. He WAS the favorite to win Wimbledon again. Had he met Goran instead of Federer, I believe he would have won.

Sampras was the favourite to win Wimbledon again based on past reputation, i.e. winning 7 out of the last 8 Wimbledons. He was not going to beat Henman or Goran without improving his form considerably. Despite that, it was still a shock when Sampras lost to Federer, purely because of its historical significance in Wimbledon history.

 

[Mustard]

Of course Sampras would've won. He would've straight setted Henman if he wanted to. The problem is that he ran into someone who actually didn't choke against him like Ivanisevic used to do on a huge scale against Sampras so Sampras was clueless.

Sampras beat Henman 3 times at Wimbledon. The only one of those matches to be in straight sets was their second round match in 1995, against a green Henman (i.e. pre-Henmania, when Jeremy Bates was still the biggest British name in the men's singles, although a Canadian player named Rusedski had just started to represent Britain at the time, and got a lot of headlines in reaching the fourth round). Both of Sampras and Henman's Wimbledon semi final meetings in 1998 and 1999 were 4-setters, and Sampras was playing much better then than what he was at 2001 Wimbledon.

As for Ivanisevic, he is somebody who has beaten Sampras at Wimbledon, a 6-7, 7-6, 6-4, 6-2 win in the semi finals in 1992, when Goran served 36 aces and didn't even face a break point in the entire match.

 

[TMF]

Sampras was the favourite to win Wimbledon again based on past reputation, i.e. winning 7 out of the last 8 Wimbledons. He was not going to beat Henman or Goran without improving his form considerably. Despite that, it was still a shock when Sampras lost to Federer, purely because of its historical significance in Wimbledon history.

Dude, you don't know that. Matchup plays different from player to player. Pete performance against Roger was well enough to beat Henman/Goran.

 

[Towser83]

in 2001 Sampras imo, wouldn't have beaten Goran. That was the one year Goran somehow managed to hold it together. Hard to see anyone beating him. Federer actually had a good chance to beat Henman and make the semis vs Goran. That would have been an interesting match, because had Federer come through that too I think he'd possibly have won Wimbledon. But I think Goran would have won.

 

[Mustard]

Dude, you don't know that. Matchup plays different from player to player. Pete performance against Roger was well enough to beat Henman/Goran.

Against Federer? Sampras missed some crucial shots and let opportunities slip him by. That's not good for Sampras at all. I don't see how you can say that Sampras' form against Federer would have been enough to beat Goran with the way that Goran was playing in the tournament. Did you see Goran crush Roddick, Rusedski and Safin when being the underdog in all 3 matches? Roddick was the new kid on the block with a dominant serve, and was expected to easily beat a "washed up" Goran, but got schooled. Goran and Rusedski was supposed to be a match with 3 or 4 tiebreaks with Rusedski having too much, but Goran won 7-6, 6-4, 6-4 and barely made a mistake throughout. Then Goran beat the world number 3 and reigning US Open champion, Safin, a performance so strong that Safin said afterwards "I will be ****ed at Goran if he doesn't win the title".

Sampras? He was looking unconvincing throughout, and the tournament favourite based on past success only. He almost lost to Barry Cowan in the second round. Like I said, though, it was still a shock when Sampras did lose to Federer, because it was such a rare thing and a big moment in Wimbledon history.

 

[The_Order]

Yes, Sampras is greater than Federer at the USO. For now. Let's see how it is by the time Federer retires

Bah! Fed has to either win it again, or make 3 more finals to top Pete's 3 finals. Isn't that right? Considering you share the same view regarding their Wimbledon status :lol:

 

[The_Order]

If Sampras was playing well in WIM2001, then Fed was playing well in WIM2010.

 

[Mustard]

If Sampras was playing well in WIM2001, then Fed was playing well in WIM2010.

Well said.

 

[TMF]

Against Federer? Sampras missed some crucial shots and let opportunities slip him by. That's not good for Sampras at all. I don't see how you can say that Sampras' form against Federer would have been enough to beat Goran with the way that Goran was playing in the tournament. Did you see Goran crush Roddick, Rusedski and Safin when being the underdog in all 3 matches? Roddick was the new kid on the block with a dominant serve, and was expected to easily beat a "washed up" Goran, but got schooled. Goran and Rusedski was supposed to be a match with 3 or 4 tiebreaks with Rusedski having too much, but Goran won 7-6, 6-4, 6-4 and barely made a mistake throughout. Then Goran beat the world number 3 and reigning US Open champion, Safin, a performance so strong that Safin said afterwards "I will be pissed at Goran if he doesn't win the title".

Sampras? He was looking unconvincing throughout, and the tournament favourite based on past success only. He almost lost to Barry Cowan in the second round. Like I said, though, it was still a shock when Sampras did lose to Federer, because it was much a rare thing and a big moment in Wimbledon history.

Goran went 5 set with Rafter in the final. He was choking while serving out for the match which he threw in a few double faults. If he was facing Pete in the final, he would be even more rattle because Pete had the best of him in the past. He also went 5 setter against Henman(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtWO1jUpvM4), I don't see how his quality would have beaten Sampras. Oh, the semifinal and final Goran threw in a total of 27 double faults combined. But you want to tell me that Sampras miss that overhead slam dunk against Federer signify that he wouldn't beat Goran? Please.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

Bah! Fed has to either win it again, or make 3 more finals to top Pete's 3 finals. Isn't that right? Considering you share the same view regarding their Wimbledon status :lol:

Federer just needs to make 2 more finals. Because Federer pretty much leads in all other stats. But I don't see him doing that.

 

[The_Order]

Federer just needs to make 2 more finals. Because Federer pretty much leads in all other stats. But I don't see him doing that.

What other stats are these may I ask? As far as I can tell Pete also made a qtr to match Fed's and Pete has another sf appearance, one less than Fed, so the only other stat Fed leads would be an extra sf appearance as far as I can tell.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

What other stats are these may I ask? As far as I can tell Pete also made a qtr to match Fed's and Pete has another sf appearance, one less than Fed, so the only other stat Fed leads would be an extra sf appearance as far as I can tell.

Greater consistency, greater dominance, more consecutive matches won, more titles on the trot, pretty much everything that counts.

 

[The_Order]

Greater consistency, greater dominance, more consecutive matches won, more titles on the trot, pretty much everything that counts.

But Pete has greater longevity. He won his first in 1990 and his last in 2002.

 

[mariecon]

But Pete has greater longevity. He won his first in 1990 and his last in 2002.

So basically it took Pete longer to win the same number of Wimbledon titles and that means he's better? Nope.

Fed's not even finished yet.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

But Pete has greater longevity. He won his first in 1990 and his last in 2002.

LOL, yes. But then Federer's shown greater longevity at Wimbledon and Sampras supporters insist that's a big weakness

 

[The_Order]

So basically it took Pete longer to win the same number of Wimbledon titles and that means he's better? Nope.

Fed's not even finished yet.

We were talking about the US Open.

 

[The_Order]

LOL, yes. But then Federer's shown greater longevity at Wimbledon and Sampras supporters insist that's a big weakness

So do you think it's a big weakness or not? If you do, then Pete > Fed WIM, if you don't Pete > Fed USO even if Fed makes 2 more finals.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

So do you think it's a big weakness or not? If you do, then Pete > Fed WIM, if you don't Pete > Fed USO even if Fed makes 2 more finals.

It's not a weakness at all. But it's not a big strength either. Consecutive titles is much more important than longevity. So is consistency.

But let's get to you. Are you saying Sampras > Federer at both Wimbledon and the USO? :lol: Please answer

 

[mariecon]

We were talking about the US Open.

I thought this was the Wimbledon thread? There's a USO thread too. It's hard to follow all these posts.

 

[The_Order]

It's not a weakness at all. But it's not a big strength either. Consecutive titles is much more important than longevity. So is consistency.

But let's get to you. Are you saying Sampras > Federer at both Wimbledon and the USO? :lol: Please answer

No, I was saying Pete and Fed are equal at Wimbledon. Federer's draw to the 2008 final was easier than Pete's in 1992 where he had lost in the semi's to Goran in a very close match. Goran on fast grass >>>>> than anyone Fed faced up until the final in 2008.

I was also saying that Fed lost in the first round 3 times vs Pete's 2 times.

Also, if you are talking about the greatest at an event, then their whole career performance at that event needs to be taken into consideration over hot stretches.

So, Pete and Fed are imo equal at WIM. But Fed will probably seal the deal this year, I can't see him losing before the semi's at the very least. At USO, Pete gets the nod.

At RG it's Rafa hands down. At AO it's Novak.

So once this season is over, provided Fed performs as well as I predict at Wimbledon IMO it'll be like this:

AO GOAT = Novak
RG GOAT = Rafa
WIM GOAT = Fed
USO GOAT = Sampras

 

[veroniquem]

Fed is the greatest Wimbledon player (open era, not all time): won 7 titles like Sampras (lost the other 7 like Sampras) but made 1 more final and has a better winning % on grass overall (87.3 vs 83.3) and has more grass titles as well. Fed also has more consecutive W wins: 5 (vs 4).

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

No, I was saying Pete and Fed are equal at Wimbledon. Federer's draw to the 2008 final was easier than Pete's in 1992 where he had lost in the semi's to Goran in a very close match. Goran on fast grass >>>>> than anyone Fed faced up until the final in 2008.

I was also saying that Fed lost in the first round 3 times vs Pete's 2 times.

Also, if you are talking about the greatest at an event, then their whole career performance at that event needs to be taken into consideration over hot stretches.

So, Pete and Fed are imo equal at WIM. But Fed will probably seal the deal this year, I can't see him losing before the semi's at the very least. At USO, Pete gets the nod.

At RG it's Rafa hands down. At AO it's Novak.

So once this season is over, provided Fed performs as well as I predict at Wimbledon IMO it'll be like this:

AO GOAT = Novak
RG GOAT = Rafa
WIM GOAT = Fed
USO GOAT = Sampras

Federer > Sampras already, don't be a goalpost-shifting hypocrite. And Connors > Sampras at the USO anyway, so he's not the GOAT there either.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

Fed is the greatest Wimbledon player (open era, not all time): won 7 titles like Sampras (lost the other 7 like Sampras) but made 1 more final and has a better winning % on grass overall (87.3 vs 83.3) and has more grass titles as well. Fed also has more consecutive W wins: 5 (vs 4).

:lol: Who comes close pre-Open era? Nobody.

 

[roysid]

Fed is the greatest Wimbledon player (open era, not all time): won 7 titles like Sampras (lost the other 7 like Sampras) but made 1 more final and has a better winning % on grass overall (87.3 vs 83.3) and has more grass titles as well. Fed also has more consecutive W wins: 5 (vs 4).

That's impressive from a diehard Nadal fan

 

[Deleted member 3771]

Fed is a Wimbledon great but he's not on the Same level as the king of Wimbledon, Sampras, who won 5 of his Wimbledon finals without being broken and also looked far more stylish playing his classic grass court sv tennis, which is synonymous with Wimbledon.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

Fed is a Wimbledon great but he's not on the Same level as the king of Wimbledon, Sampras, who won 5 of his Wimbledon finals without being broken and also looked far more stylish playing his classic grass court sv tennis, which is synonymous with Wimbledon.

Sampras has never won any Slam without being broken, let alone Wimbledon. You guys are delusional. Or ignorant.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

Sampras has never won any Slam without being broken, let alone Wimbledon. You guys are delusional. Or ignorant.

read read, it says 'finals'

 

[helloworld]

read read, it says 'finals'

Please forgive him. He's a blinded ****.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

read read, it says 'finals'

Oh, big deal. Just 5 matches, then. He also lost in semifinals without managing one break of serve.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

Please forgive him. He's a blinded ****.

Originally Posted by helloworld
Sampras has 8 trophies(5 W & 3 F). Federer has 6 trophies(5 W & 1 F). Sampras >> Federer as far as US Open is concerned.

That's what you said on the USO thread. So Federer > Sampras at Wimbledon since 8>7

 

[Deleted member 3771]

Please forgive him. He's a blinded ****.

He's forgiven.To his credit, Fed managed to win one of his Wimbledon finals without being broken, but that's miles away from the standard of excellence that the King set in winning 5 Wimbledon finals without being broken.

 

[The_Order]

Fed's been in 2 finals I think where he only managed one break IINM. 2008 and 2009? I'm pretty sure in 2009 he only broke Roddick once and against Rafa I'm pretty sure it was only one break as well.

 

[forzamilan90]

Fed is the greatest Wimbledon player (open era, not all time): won 7 titles like Sampras (lost the other 7 like Sampras) but made 1 more final and has a better winning % on grass overall (87.3 vs 83.3) and has more grass titles as well. Fed also has more consecutive W wins: 5 (vs 4).

No one pre open era comes close. Surely u dont think Renshaw is in rhe conversation

 

[tennis_pro]

Fed is the greatest Wimbledon player (open era, not all time): won 7 titles like Sampras (lost the other 7 like Sampras) but made 1 more final and has a better winning % on grass overall (87.3 vs 83.3) and has more grass titles as well. Fed also has more consecutive W wins: 5 (vs 4).

/thread

dont know why these petos tacos keep defending sampras when hes got nothing on federer

 

[tennis_pro]

But Pete has greater longevity. He won his first in 1990 and his last in 2002.

Wot. Apart from that fluked 90 US Open where "everything worked but dont know how" as Sampras said his winning span was 1993-2002, identical as Federer's 2003-2012.

Besides, Federer's not done yet. I could well see him winning an odd major in his mid 30's while sampras was a goner after 29.

 

[MTF07]

Wot. Apart from that fluked 90 US Open where "everything worked but dont know how" as Sampras said his winning span was 1993-2002, identical as Federer's 2003-2012.

Besides, Federer's not done yet. I could well see him winning an odd major in his mid 30's while sampras was a goner after 29.

He's talking about titles though. So Federer's span between his first and last US Open titles is 2004-2008.

 

[tennis_pro]

He's talking about titles though. So Federer's span between his first and last US Open titles is 2004-2008.

oh I see, i still dont see how that makes sampras better. if anything it makes him 3x as vulnerable in his prime than federer who won 5 times in a row, was virtually 2 good serves away from a 6th title in a row and was pushed like what twice to a 5th set in that run?

I guess for some Sampras winning in 90, 93, 95, 96 and 02 but losing to the likes of Yzaga, Kodra and barely beating the likes of Corretja is more impressive that Federer who only made his first QF appearance in 2004 but won 5 titles in an row, reached 6 finals in a row and was 2 points away from 8 finals in a row (had he converted those match points) and at 32 he's still a top 4 favorite for the title.

Petos tacos would make a better arguement saying that sampras reached 8 finals total more than federer which is true and valid. I still believe Federer has 3-4 more good runs at the US Open in him though so the best thing is to wait and see.