Wimbledon. Peak Sampras v Peak Federer. Who would win?

[Karma Tennis]

Obviously a joke post. Pete Sampras was so much more mentally strong than Fed nobody could even measure it. Pete was a mental rock, Fed....??? Not even close.

Joke? Seriously? The only things that matter ...

AO
Federer 6 Titles from 7 Finals, 8SFs
Sampras 2 Titles from 3 Finals, 2AFs

RG
Federer 1 Title from 5 Finals, 3SFs (in an era shared with Rafa Nadal, greatest Clay Courter of All Time)
Sampras 1SF

Wimbledon
Federer 8 Titles from 12 Finals, 1SF
Sampras 7 Titles from 7 Finals, 1 SF

USO
Federer 5 Titles from 7 Finals, 1SF
Sampras 5 Titles from 8 Finals, 1SF

Federer is the more complete player. He has played over a greater number of years and continues to play at a very high level into his late 30s. Sampras retired in his early thirties because he was mentally fatigued. (And this is before you consider the additional pressures placed on modern players that Sampras never had to endure. All of that adds up in the Mental Prowess stakes.)

No other player in the history of the game has "carried" the sport the way Federer has ... except for perhaps Bjorn Borg.

Federer has also had to deal with three other great players of his career (Nadal, Djokovic and Murray). Two of them other legit potential candidates for modern GOAT Status, Nadal and Djokovic. Sampras really only had to deal with Agassi.

Don't get me wrong. I love Pete. He was great for the game. But he was in no way a complete Tennis player. He, by his own admission says that. He focused his game on winning Wimbledon titles and his home Major. Federer focused on winning everything. Pete was great when he was dominating matches.

At their PEAK, the more complete player will always dominate. At their Peak, Federer would easily account for Sampras on his favoured surface. Easily match him on HC. And completely dominate him on Red Clay. No contest.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

I like Fed over Pete (very narrow margin) due to the matchup. Obviously Pete's serve is way better in a vacuum, but actually outserving Fed in a direct matchup in the late rounds of Wimbledon (or anywhere) is almost impossible because of how spectacular his first return is against big serving. Fed was getting reads on the serve and making Pete volley up in 01 in a way I haven't seen anyone do on grass. Obviously there's gonna be a lot of breakers, Mr. 15-1 in TBs in the SF/F is up to that task. None of that was against Pete obviously, but Fed was an absolute master at raising the level in breakers, crucial breakers. 04/07 finals third sets are my favorite.

The thing about Federer on grass is that he has so much variety that he can put you in uncomfortable positions, whether that's off the return or with his slice. On the other hand, Fed is such a good grass court mover, that it never seems like he's in uncomfortable positions. Of course we've never seen him against someone that can put tons of forward pressure on him, but certainly nothing indicates he'd fail that test considering his passing shot prowess.

Another great example is the first set and a bit in the 03 final. One of the hands down greatest servers served over 80% in the first set and Fed still won 29% of return points. The minute the percentage slipped, Fed completely took him apart in the 2nd in a returning clinic. Consistently made Scud volley up. I know it's an afterthought now, but I remember that tournament and Scud's serving was scary good. I had an idea of what Fed could do on the return but it was still incredible to see.

Actually for me, it's the 01 match that suggests Sampras' serve wouldn't be destroyed so easily on grass (even at a time when it was getting eaten up by Safin and Hewitt at USO). Neither player was at their peak there but it's a good indication of why it would be a tough match up. Even in that match, Sampras hit up high numbers on the first serve. It was his second serve that let him down a tad. But at peak, he would have defended his second serve better. So I stand by my view that on grass, Sampras' serve was an impenetrable fortress. The problem when it comes to Fed is deciding what is a peak Fed on grass because he has kept evolving. His return game as well as even volleying was brilliant in 2003 but on serve, 2015 semi against Murray was the most fearsome I have seen from him. It would pretty much be serve shootouts with Sampras also serving up unreturnables from the other end. In the tiebreak, I will favour Sampras' ability to serve out a big point with a big serve. Not that Fed can't - 40-15 notwithstanding - but Sampras is just a little better in that department imo.

 

[mental midget]

federer has a bigger edge on returns than sampras does on the serve. federer has the edge off the ground. net game is a wash. federer has more options from more places on the court. close match but i think roger makes a couple less errors, puts pete in trouble more often on service games...and takes it more often than not.

 

[JoshuaPim]

Would be a great match between the grass GOATs that's for sure. Fed had much more variety of course but Pete's serve/FH combo was absolutely fearsome on grass. Possibly a final set TB lol.

 

[zagor]

Actually for me, it's the 01 match that suggests Sampras' serve wouldn't be destroyed so easily on grass (even at a time when it was getting eaten up by Safin and Hewitt at USO). Neither player was at their peak there but it's a good indication of why it would be a tough match up. Even in that match, Sampras hit up high numbers on the first serve. It was his second serve that let him down a tad. But at peak, he would have defended his second serve better. So I stand by my view that on grass, Sampras' serve was an impenetrable fortress. The problem when it comes to Fed is deciding what is a peak Fed on grass because he has kept evolving. His return game as well as even volleying was brilliant in 2003 but on serve, 2015 semi against Murray was the most fearsome I have seen from him. It would pretty much be serve shootouts with Sampras also serving up unreturnables from the other end. In the tiebreak, I will favour Sampras' ability to serve out a big point with a big serve. Not that Fed can't - 40-15 notwithstanding - but Sampras is just a little better in that department imo.

Agree overall but I'd just mention that in their 2001 encounter Sampras actually served exceptionally well even for his standards IIRC (been a few years since I watched that match). Of course, everything else wasn't peak Pistol, the movement and the athleticism, return and passing shots etc. but his serving was on fire.

 

[zagor]

Overall, it seems like Fed sticking around for so long and some of the ugly losses (the last one in particular) is going to permanently change how people remember him. Pretty sad because his whole claim to fame was the sheer dominance and mastery of the game of the TMF days. Now, he's "great numbers and consistency, but he'll fall short when it counts!". I see this vibe over and over again and it makes me laugh. Pretty sad for a guy that played the most magical tennis anyone's ever seen and was once 12-2 in slam finals. But yeah he lost a brutal match at 38 years old, so all of that goes out the window.

Many people have very short memories, you don't say. That said, who cares what the general tennis public thinks. You only need to put Fed and best shots on youtube and even a person who never watched tennis in their life before would understand the magic. This thread aside, other greats have suffered somewhat similar fates. A lot of people now remember Sampras as a serve guy, despite him essentially being the Fed of his era (all-around player who had every shot), Borg is remembered as a claycourter even though he served and volleyed at Wimbledon and was a beast on carpet etc. etc.

Re: falling short when it counts, you can also blame the next-next-next gen for that. Novak and Nadal were very shaky mentally too in their most recent slam titles but were facing mental titans in Thiem and Medvedev. They're shielded from their "tough champion" reputation taking a hit in advanced tennis years because younger guys are flakes.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Many people have very short memories, you don't say. That said, who cares what the general tennis public thinks. You only need to put Fed and best shots on youtube and even a person who never watched tennis in their life before would understand the magic. This thread aside, other greats have suffered somewhat similar fates. A lot of people now remember Sampras as a serve guy, despite him essentially being the Fed of his era (all-around player who had every shot), Borg is remembered as a claycourter even though he served and volleyed at Wimbledon and was a beast on carpet etc. etc.

Re: falling short when it counts, you can also blame the next-next-next gen for that. Novak and Nadal were very shaky mentally too in their most recent slam titles but were facing mental titans in Thiem and Medvedev. They're shielded from their "tough champion" reputation taking a hit in advanced tennis years because younger guys are flakes.

Absolutely. Of all the things, this harping on 'mental strength' after a 38 year old Fed lost from match points to Novak is the worst. Hey, Pete stopped playing pro tennis long before he was 38, nobody asked him to run away from Fed, Hewitt, et al, so shut up, ok? Fed has done almost everything he could have to stop the other two from taking his record. If nobody will step up from the youngsters to deny Novak and Rafa the slams, Fed can't help that. He isn't superman, end of the day and even if he was, the other two are his arch rivals, not lesser mortals. I would have been absolutely delirious had he actually served out those match points. I mean, beating his fabled younger rivals in back to back matches at the age of 38? It didn't happen but that's ok, he didn't crumble after losing those match points, made Novak have to take it in the super tiebreak.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Agree overall but I'd just mention that in their 2001 encounter Sampras actually served exceptionally well even for his standards IIRC (been a few years since I watched that match). Of course, everything else wasn't peak Pistol, the movement and the athleticism, return and passing shots etc. but his serving was on fire.

He served great but not more so than the 99 final. Since we are talking peakest peak here. No doubt it was a very, very good Sampras, 'prime form' as per TT terminology.

 

[metsman]

Actually for me, it's the 01 match that suggests Sampras' serve wouldn't be destroyed so easily on grass (even at a time when it was getting eaten up by Safin and Hewitt at USO). Neither player was at their peak there but it's a good indication of why it would be a tough match up. Even in that match, Sampras hit up high numbers on the first serve. It was his second serve that let him down a tad. But at peak, he would have defended his second serve better. So I stand by my view that on grass, Sampras' serve was an impenetrable fortress. The problem when it comes to Fed is deciding what is a peak Fed on grass because he has kept evolving. His return game as well as even volleying was brilliant in 2003 but on serve, 2015 semi against Murray was the most fearsome I have seen from him. It would pretty much be serve shootouts with Sampras also serving up unreturnables from the other end. In the tiebreak, I will favour Sampras' ability to serve out a big point with a big serve. Not that Fed can't - 40-15 notwithstanding - but Sampras is just a little better in that department imo.

Obviously his serve is not getting destroyed lol. In that match, I don't really care about the results or numbers, but I do think Fed was getting better reads and making better first serve returns than I'd see others get on grass.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Obviously his serve is not getting destroyed lol. In that match, I don't really care about the results or numbers, but I do think Fed was getting better reads and making better first serve returns than I'd see others get on grass.

I meant getting destroyed in the context of those USO finals at the same time as this Wimbledon match. Sampras got burnt by Hewitt/Safin's returns/passes in those finals but at Wimbledon, his serve was nowhere near as threatened. Though it helped no doubt that Wimbledon was still the fastest court in the world. It is often suggested that it still is the fastest, but I have a hard time believing it does still play faster than the few remaining fast indoor courts like Stockholm or Basel.

 

[JasonZ]

Actually for me, it's the 01 match that suggests Sampras' serve wouldn't be destroyed so easily on grass (even at a time when it was getting eaten up by Safin and Hewitt at USO). Neither player was at their peak there but it's a good indication of why it would be a tough match up. Even in that match, Sampras hit up high numbers on the first serve. It was his second serve that let him down a tad. But at peak, he would have defended his second serve better. So I stand by my view that on grass, Sampras' serve was an impenetrable fortress. The problem when it comes to Fed is deciding what is a peak Fed on grass because he has kept evolving. His return game as well as even volleying was brilliant in 2003 but on serve, 2015 semi against Murray was the most fearsome I have seen from him. It would pretty much be serve shootouts with Sampras also serving up unreturnables from the other end. In the tiebreak, I will favour Sampras' ability to serve out a big point with a big serve. Not that Fed can't - 40-15 notwithstanding - but Sampras is just a little better in that department imo.

Sampras first serve % was very high in that 2001 match against Federer. Over 65 %, this is much higher than in any wimby final he played. And Federer still had 13 break points, and broke Pete 3 times. They both had 25 aces but Federer had a few more unreturned serves, despite Sampras having the much faster and harder serve and a great first serve %. Sampras fastest serve that day was 139 mph, he never served faster than this. So you see how great Federers return against huge serves was even back then. I think he would have beaten Sampras peak vs peak.

 

[scotus]

Sampras first serve % was very high in that 2001 match against Federer. Over 65 %, this is much higher than in any wimby final he played. And Federer still had 13 break points, and broke Pete 3 times. They both had 25 aces but Federer had a few more unreturned serves, despite Sampras having the much faster and harder serve and a great first serve %. Sampras fastest serve that day was 139 mph, he never served faster than this. So you see how great Federers return against huge serves was even back then. I think he would have beaten Sampras peak vs peak.

Sampras wasn't painting the line or hitting the sharp corners with his serves that day.

 

[jxs653]

Surprised to see there are more votes for Sampras. Don't you native English speakers have the phrase "standing on the shoulders of giants"? That applies in sports too I think.

 

[GoldenSwing]

Sampras first serve % was very high in that 2001 match against Federer. Over 65 %, this is much higher than in any wimby final he played. And Federer still had 13 break points, and broke Pete 3 times. They both had 25 aces but Federer had a few more unreturned serves, despite Sampras having the much faster and harder serve and a great first serve %. Sampras fastest serve that day was 139 mph, he never served faster than this. So you see how great Federers return against huge serves was even back then. I think he would have beaten Sampras peak vs peak.

There is too much worshipping of the olden times on this forum... Federer's variety, modern technique, top spin, and all around game would give Sampras a run for his money. Not to mention prime Federer was way more fit than prime Sampras.

 

[Mkiske]

Peak Pistol Pete.

 

[Karma Tennis]

Sampras fanatics keep focusing on GRASS.

The OP did not limit his question to Grass. He was talking about Tennis in general.

In any case, Peak Federer would easily match Peak Sampras on Grass. Junior Federer with limited Pro. experience beat a highly experienced multiple Wimbledon Champion in Sampras on Grass at Wimbledon.

Once you move to the other surfaces, especially Red Clay, the true test of a Tennis Player (unless you are an American!), Sampras would be no contest for Federer.

 

[DerekNoleFam1]

As a non-fan of both, I'd say Sampras marginally has the edge , esp with his clutch 2nd serve.
The Sampras serve us arguably the best shot in the history of tennis.

 

[Nadal_Django]

One matchup where the nostalgia, a really strong sentiment on this forum, doesn't work in favour of Federer.

 

[Karma Tennis]

As a non-fan of both, I'd say Sampras marginally has the edge , esp with his clutch 2nd serve.

On Red Clay? On slow Hard Court?

The Sampras serve us arguably the best shot in the history of tennis.

Rafa Nadal's Topspin Forehand?
Novak Djokovics DH Backhand?
Andre Agassi's Return of Serve?
John McEnroe's can opener Serve to the AD Court?

One matchup where the nostalgia, a really strong sentiment on this forum, doesn't work in favour of Federer.

As is the "American" factor. This is an American Forum after all!

 

[NatF]

Tennis evolves except when it doesn't

 

[DSH]

Doesn't make any sense. Federer in 2012 played lol against Bennetau and still mopped the floor from SF and onwards.

One match doesn't tell everything. Sampras was taken often enough to a fifth set at Wimbledon. He only looked for that one break advantage and didn't care about EVERY game. Nontheless, I wouldn't go as far as to say that he was peak.

Comparing Sampras and Federer at the age of 30 doesn't make sense either. While the Swiss was a constant threat at that time in 3 of the 4 Majors (and has remained in the elite until the age of 38 except for injuries in 2013 and late 2016),
the steep decline suffered by the American was visible in his game after the 1999 season. Even from that moment his characteristic lack of explosiveness was already manifested in him.
His unfortunate herniated disc injury ended his athletic prime, and his lack of motivation after earning the GS record at the time, took their toll on "Pistol" Pete's game.
And of course, Federer is much more complete than him and he has known how to adapt to the circumstances of tennis trends to this day.
Hence his amazing longevity.

 

[zagor]

Tennis evolves except when it doesn't

Problem is that it's hard (for me atleast) to separate evolution of the game versus simply adapting the game to current conditions (or taking advantage of them with your natural game).

For example Nadal is gonna easily end up with most slams in this era but he couldn't get over the fast grass in 1st week hurdle for how many years and he can't win YEC/WTF on a slow HC.

 

[Third Serve]

Sampras fanatics keep focusing on GRASS.

The OP did not limit his question to Grass. He was talking about Tennis in general.

In any case, Peak Federer would easily match Peak Sampras on Grass. Junior Federer with limited Pro. experience beat a highly experienced multiple Wimbledon Champion in Sampras on Grass at Wimbledon.

Once you move to the other surfaces, especially Red Clay, the true test of a Tennis Player (unless you are an American!), Sampras would be no contest for Federer.

The thread title reads "Wimbledon. Peak Sampras vs Peak Federer. Who would win?"

Last I checked, Wimbledon is a grass court tournament.

 

[DSH]

Many people have very short memories, you don't say. That said, who cares what the general tennis public thinks. You only need to put Fed and best shots on youtube and even a person who never watched tennis in their life before would understand the magic. This thread aside, other greats have suffered somewhat similar fates. A lot of people now remember Sampras as a serve guy, despite him essentially being the Fed of his era (all-around player who had every shot), Borg is remembered as a claycourter even though he served and volleyed at Wimbledon and was a beast on carpet etc. etc.

Re: falling short when it counts, you can also blame the next-next-next gen for that. Novak and Nadal were very shaky mentally too in their most recent slam titles but were facing mental titans in Thiem and Medvedev. They're shielded from their "tough champion" reputation taking a hit in advanced tennis years because younger guys are flakes.

You can add to that list the best of that repertoire: Marin Cilic!

 

[zagor]

You can add to that list the best of that repertoire: Marin Cilic!

Cilic was never hailed as a heir to the throne. Medvedev and Thiem are supposed to be among the best next gen can offer. There's a very clear difference there.

It's like comparing Todd Martin and the New Balls generation.

 

[papertank]

Modern grass Fed wins handily. On 90s grass it’d basically be a servebot contest so 50/50 there but I’d give the slight edge to Sampras.

 

[Start da Game]

if they are both allowed only wilson prostaff 6.0 85 original, then the balance shifts heavily towards pete, definitely on grass........

 

[scotus]

Sampras fanatics keep focusing on GRASS.

The OP did not limit his question to Grass. He was talking about Tennis in general.

In any case, Peak Federer would easily match Peak Sampras on Grass. Junior Federer with limited Pro. experience beat a highly experienced multiple Wimbledon Champion in Sampras on Grass at Wimbledon.

Once you move to the other surfaces, especially Red Clay, the true test of a Tennis Player (unless you are an American!), Sampras would be no contest for Federer.

Some Fednatics need to learn how to read.

 

[NatF]

Problem is that it's hard (for me atleast) to separate evolution of the game versus simply adapting the game to current conditions (or taking advantage of them with your natural game).

For example Nadal is gonna easily end up with most slams in this era but he couldn't get over the fast grass in 1st week hurdle for how many years and he can't win YEC/WTF on a slow HC.

I was being sarcastic there.

I do think tennis evolves over time but that's mostly due to racket changes, we've seen past their prime champions competing with current ATG's going back to the days of Tilden so I don't think the absolute level of these top players goes up that much generation to generation.

 

[DSH]

Cilic was never hailed as a heir to the throne. Medvedev and Thiem are supposed to be among the best next gen can offer. There's a very clear difference there.

It's like comparing Todd Martin and the New Balls generation.

You are clearly making fun of Nadal and Djokovic's rivals by calling them "mental giants" with the sole purpose of discrediting the current 1 and 2 in the world.

It is very clear that Federer fans do not like anything about that the Spaniard and the Serbian exceed his two most important records.
That irritates them greatly.

 

[RelentlessAttack]

Despite complaints that the courts have slowed down (which suits most of their games), nearly everyone got taken out within the first two rounds so it's obviously about more than the speed itself.

Unpredictable, low, skidding bounce, less predictable footing with a tendency to skid when changing direction. I was a really mediocre junior since tennis was my third sport, but I grew up playing indoors and my parents had taught me an old school game with an eastern FH, lots of net play and lots of BH slice. Then I remember one summer as a teenager going over to a camp in oxford where they had a lot of grass courts and just smoking these much better Southern European juniors who had grown up on clay or HC. Then a couple days of the camp we moved over to HC and I was getting blown off the court by the same guys. It wasn’t even close. They were much better than me, but just couldn’t move as well on the grass, flat and sliced balls didn’t rise up into their preferred strike zone, and they weren’t getting the consistency of bounce and footing they wanted to tee off on their groundstrokes.

Obviously the pros are a very different calculus, but I imagine similar issues play a role.

 

[Karma Tennis]

The thread title reads "Wimbledon. Peak Sampras vs Peak Federer. Who would win?"

Some Fednatics need to learn how to read.

LOL. Good to see that some of the posters here are actually paying attention.

Doesn't matter. Federer would easily match Sampras at Wimbledon on any natural grass surface. Easily demonstrated by his record breaking feats there.

BTW, as has been mentioned on many many occassions ... the grass at Wimbledon is not slower than it was. There is plenty of information on the net from verified sources that explains how the surface has changed over the years. The grass is actually a little longer at the start of the Tournament than it used to be. The main reasons for that is threefold ...1/ Provide better court wear, 2/ Provide less erratic ball bounce, 3/ Provide better traction for players to minimise chance of injury.

The playing conditions at Wimbledon have been slowed by two major changes. The ditching of the smaller heavier white coloured tennis balls back in the 1970s. And placing a roof on the court - which at this stage only affects Centre Court and Court No. 1.

 

[zagor]

You are clearly making fun of Nadal and Djokovic's rivals by calling them "mental giants" with the sole purpose of discrediting the current 1 and 2 in the world.

For supposed best the next gen has to offer, Thiem and Medvedev are vastly overhyped mental flakes.

Whether I make fun of them or not, that's just the way it is.

It is very clear that Federer fans do not like anything about that the Spaniard and the Serbian exceed his two most important records.
That irritates them greatly.

Yeah and Djokodal fans didn't like anything about Fed having those records in the first place so whoop-te-do.

 

[Sysyphus]

damn

hypothetical peak Fed has been hit by a *precipitous* decline lately.

There was a time when these sort of poll results were unthinkable.

 

[TheNachoMan]

Pete had a mental toughness that only Novak can rival. No way Fed could hang with him in his prime

damn

hypothetical peak Fed has been hit by a *precipitous* decline lately.

There was a time when these sort of poll results were unthinkable.

40-15 changed everything..

 

[adil1972]

50-50

 

[JoshuaPim]

Pete had a mental toughness that only Novak can rival. No way Fed could hang with him in his prime

40-15 changed everything..

not as much as 1-3 or the DQ.

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

Sampras first serve % was very high in that 2001 match against Federer. Over 65 %, this is much higher than in any wimby final he played. And Federer still had 13 break points, and broke Pete 3 times. They both had 25 aces but Federer had a few more unreturned serves, despite Sampras having the much faster and harder serve and a great first serve %. Sampras fastest serve that day was 139 mph, he never served faster than this. So you see how great Federers return against huge serves was even back then. I think he would have beaten Sampras peak vs peak.

Well, that was 2001 grass not 1995 grass.

 

[Karma Tennis]

Pete had a mental toughness that only Novak can rival. No way Fed could hang with him in his prime

Not a chance. Go back and read Post #151 !

Don't measure Mental Prowess when everything is going right ... measure it when everything is not going to plan.

Well, that was 2001 grass not 1995 grass.

Federer would easily match Sampras at Wimbledon on any natural grass surface. Easily demonstrated by his record breaking feats there.

The grass at Wimbledon is not slower than it was. There is plenty of information on the net from verified sources that explains how the surface has changed over the years. The grass is actually a little longer at the start of the Tournament than it used to be. The main reasons for that is threefold ...1/ Provide better court wear, 2/ Provide less erratic ball bounce, 3/ Provide better traction for players to minimise chance of injury.

The playing conditions at Wimbledon have been slowed by two major changes. The ditching of the smaller heavier white coloured tennis balls back in the 1970s. And placing a roof on the court - which at this stage only affects Centre Court and Court No. 1. Neither of those relevant when Sampras and Federer were at their Wimbledon peaks.

 

[Villain]

Pete. Always Pete.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

tennis would win.

 

[Start da Game]

peak pete was a monster at wimbledon, he is 7-0 there in the finals for a reason........if they both played a series of 10 imaginary matches i would say pete wins 7 of them and fed would score about 3 wins........

 

[Karma Tennis]

Sampras, Better First Serve, Better FH.
Federer, Better Second Serve, Better BH, Better Volley, Better Smash, Better Drop Shot, Better Return of Serve, Better Court Movement, Better at Adjusting to different Weather Conditions (And if there was a Roof, Federer would be at an even greater advantage)

 

[Third Serve]

Sampras, Better First Serve, Better FH.
Federer, Better Second Serve, Better BH, Better Volley, Better Smash, Better Drop Shot, Better Return of Serve, Better Court Movement, Better at Adjusting to different Weather Conditions (And if there was a Roof, Federer would be at an even greater advantage)

Fed doesn't have better volleys. Likewise, Sampras doesn't have a better FH.

 

[RS]

Both overrated on grass at peak level.

 

[Third Serve]

Both overrated at Wim.

Are there any better?

 

[RS]

Are there any better?

Maybe not but the statement stands to me.

 

[Biotic]

Pete had a mental toughness that only Novak can rival. No way Fed could hang with him in his prime

40-15 changed everything..

Which of the bunch?

 

[ForehandRF]

Fed gets penalized for longevity at Wimbledon.Had Pete played till 38, he would have lost to Fed and even to Roddick.So much for the record in finals being held against Fed when Pete retired at a much younger age.
Other than that, I think that Fed would have exploited Pete's backhand because that wing was a liability for the American.Fed more complete from the baseline.

 

[Third Serve]

Maybe not but the statement stands to me.

Yeah, I can see what you mean. PETE and Fed both had their easier titles at Wimby. But I think their overall levels were great enough that it probably wouldn’t have mattered much against stronger opposition.

IMO if anyone is overrated at Wimbledon it’s Djokovic. His grass level is closer to his clay level than it is his HC level and he hasn’t looked so convincing in some of his wins.