Why The Grass Is Always Greener For Roger Federer

Only Pete was peerless on grass.
Losing half as many finals as you win, and breaking a record by beating an injured, weeping opponent isn't.
 
Machan ... I admit I'm a hugely biased Djokovic fan. But is there any such thing as a non-biased fan? :)

These kind of discussions go nowhere which is why it's better to go with available facts rather than imaginary matches. 'Ifs' have no place in tennis but if you're simply doing it for fun, I'll answer. If Federer had retired in 2013, Djokvoc would not just be going after Federer's 2 most important records, but 3. He'd also be going after Federer's Wimbledon record because he'd be just 2 short! :)

True. But that would have meant Nadal already being proclaimed a GOAT :)
 
Only Pete was peerless on grass.
Losing half as many finals as you win, and breaking a record by beating an injured, weeping opponent isn't.

Agreed about Sampras.

Who was injured and weeping? Roddick, the man who was 'fine' with losing 8 finals to Federer? :)

Got it now, I think you're referring to Cilic.
 
Only Pete was peerless on grass.
Losing half as many finals as you win, and breaking a record by beating an injured, weeping opponent isn't.

Reaching only seven finals is too little. Nole Rafa, Fred all have at least 8. New standards now.

The only one who is actually peerless, is Nadal on clay. You can't be peerless when you have less titles, losing H2H to Fred on grass. Since that's what you're using against Fed (H2H). So, even Saint Petros has to admit, Sampras being peerless on grass is ridiculous lol.

Show Sampras H2H vs Federer (in matches but also in titles on grass and compare what happens).
 
Back
Top