Would you consider Djokovic a greater Wimbledon player than Sampras if he wins another title there?

[aman92]

I tend to rate Borg higher because he won all of them in his prime. Beat the like of Mac, who is likely stronger than old Fed and in general presented a somewhat more impressive level, though not by a huge margin.

So Novak sitting at 4 titles after his hard fought 2018 run is fine, but 2019 and 2021 were a bit much of a bonus given his level (or at least from how I perceived his level).

Same could be said of Federer's 2017 title

 

[InsideOut900]

Borg finest one was really Mac one, if you are comparing competition in last few rounds Borg also fared when there was little bit vacuum in grass era.
84 onwards grass field become strong and was strong till 96 surely.

I trust if he beat Mac in 1980 he was capable of a similar level in his earlier years. 1978 was likely his peak year anyway. Harder to do a perfect evaluation due to how different the playing conditions were.

For me the discussion boils down to the timing. If Djoko won 5 in a row between 2011-2015 and a 6th one in 2018, it would be very believable he is ahead of Borg.
It's harder to trust someone's level when they are older, just on principle.

 

[Adam Copeland]

I trust if he beat Mac in 1980 he was capable of a similar level in his earlier years. 1978 was likely his peak year anyway. Harder to do a perfect evaluation due to how different the playing conditions were.

For me the discussion boils down to the timing. If Djoko won 5 in a row between 2011-2015 and a 6th one in 2018, it would be very believable he is ahead of Borg.
It's harder to trust someone's level when they are older, just on principle.

Who were Borg's rivals in his first 4 wimbledons ?
Nastase and Connors ? Connors' only notable achievement at wimbledon (excluding him beating an old rosewall) is his win over Mac later on.
Then Rsocoe Tanner, that guy was a servebot.

Were they great on Grass ? Borg won his first 4 titles in a vacuum.

 

[Adam Copeland]

If Borg and Mac were of the same age then instead of Nastase-Connors Borg would have directly had to beat Mcenroe, his 5 titles would have been like 2-3 then ... see how Borg is overrated on Grass...

 

[Russeljones]

Who were Borg's rivals in his first 4 wimbledons ?
Nastase and Connors ? Connors' only notable achievement at wimbledon (excluding him beating an old rosewall) is his win over Mac later on.
Then Rsocoe Tanner, that guy was a servebot.

Were they great on Grass ? Borg won his first 4 titles in a vacuum.

You know that there are more matches on grass than the Wimbledon final? The Forest Hills/USO tournament was grass, and so were many more strongly attended tournaments.

 

[tennis_pro]

Well nobody considers Federer a greater Wimbledon player than Sampras, so no chance of anyone considering Djokovic.
This is the weakest grasscourt era ever, with nearly everybody clueless on grass....
Been an awfully weak field for many years now.

go to bed jimmy

 

[SummerBreeze]

I whisper truths that may be uncomfortable to Fed devotee ears.

He has not even met Hewitt and Safin in a Wimbledon final, let alone be bossed around by them in it. So far for whispering truths.

 

[NonP]

I tend to rate Borg higher because he won all of them in his prime. Beat the like of Mac, who is likely stronger than old Fed and in general presented a somewhat more impressive level, though not by a huge margin.

So Novak sitting at 4 titles after his hard fought 2018 run is fine, but 2019 and 2021 were a bit much of a bonus given his level (or at least from how I perceived his level).

I'm always heartened to see youngsters giving old-timers their due and Borg above Novak isn't that big a stretch at all. What I object to is this notion of Novak having "overachieved" at Wimbledon. You don't win any major 6 times by accident, and nobody who can b!tch-slap Rafa from the baseline as in '11/'18 or flat-out outclass Fred as in '15 can be said to be an overachiever.

Of course the easy retort is that Fed or Bull at least in '18 was past his salad days, which brings us to....

Borg finest one was really Mac one, if you are comparing competition in last few rounds Borg also fared when there was little bit vacuum in grass era.
84 onwards grass field become strong and was strong till 96 surely.

And you could say Borg never faced peak Mac, either. Per UTS here are the OE players who cracked/approached the rare 65% mark in GW% (tour-level only) on grass:

1976 Borg - 65.52%
1984 McEnroe - 67.20%
1995 Agassi - 64.97%
2004 Federer - 65.78%

Only 4 in the entire OE, and even among this select company '84 Mac stands out. And even if we limit our comparison to Wimbledon SuperMac remains the only one who ever toyed with breaking the even more rarefied 70% ceiling, including the justly legendary final which remains the single most dominant one-man show of the OE. Simply put '84 Mac has no equal, and while it's admittedly unfair to hold anyone to that otherworldly standard Mac's GW%s on grass in his previous runs were hardly pedestrian:

1980 - 62.21%
1981 - 62.12%
1982 - 63.41%
1983 - 62.18%

Compare those with Borg's from 1976-1980 (which line up with my own stats as he played no warm-up event after '74):

1976 - 65.52%
1977 - 58.48%
1978 - 61.28%
1979 - 59.84%
1980 - 61.38%
1981 - 58.82%

All of which does reinforce the idea that despite Borg's 5 Mac w/3 was the superior lawnmower at their best. Kinda like Novak vs. Fed, the difference of course being that the latter is both better and greater, but you can see why (cherry-picked) numbers don't always tell the full story.

 

[Adv. Edberg]

If Djokovic wins another Wimbledon title, he'll have equal titles as Sampras but more finals and a winning H2h against Federer and Nadal. Is this enough to put him ahead of Sampras as a greater Wimbledon player?

not even close. Sampras is the goat overall most likely and W was his best slam.

 

[Adv. Edberg]

Sampras won 7 wimbledon in 8 years and in those times careers ended by 30, unlike now when people are playing till their late 30s.

Slam Counts now are 1.5 times of what it were in the 20th century,

Sampras's 7 slams is worth 10-11 slams now.

It is not wrong to say that Sampras is the greatest on grass or at the very least on par with Federer, not below.

not only that but it was harder to win slams back in the 80s and 90s for a variety of reasons.

 

[Nole_King]

No. Sampras and Federer are almost equal as far as Wimbledon is considered. Novak can win few more but would still be considered below the two. It doesn't take much different skills these days to win one slam over another. The game is so much homogenized. During Sampras' era, the list of players in second week of French Open was completely different than for the ones in Wimbledon. Even during Federer's early years, you could see him playing a lot of S&V to win his Wimbledons. Hence for me those players were the best that I saw on grass.

 

[Dan007]

Yes, go tell that to players like Wawrinka, Thiem, Medvedev and many others who never amounted to anything on grass despite being very good HC players. And claiming fast grass is more grass than slow grass is extremely moronic. Grass is grass, period.

LOL somebody is butthurt

 

[T007]

Well nobody considers Federer a greater Wimbledon player than Sampras, so no chance of anyone considering Djokovic.
This is the weakest grasscourt era ever, with nearly everybody clueless on grass....
Been an awfully weak field for many years now.

Federer is the greatest grass court player ever with 8 titles and sampras follows him.

The slowing down of courts in last decade hurt Federer but he made 4 finals. If not for djokovic he could have had 10-11 wimbledons by now.

 

[GabeT]

Tied

 

[DIMI_D]

If Djokovic wins another Wimbledon title, he'll have equal titles as Sampras but more finals and a winning H2h against Federer and Nadal. Is this enough to put him ahead of Sampras as a greater Wimbledon player?

I don’t even consider Fed is better than Sampras on grass

 

[Third Serve]

I think Novak has overachieved by about 2 titles at Wimbledon. His general level of play on grass seems befitting a 4-time champion, not a 6-time winner, and he's been able to get away with playing sub-par tennis in 2019 and 2021 because the grass competition has been dead for years (the Wimby 2018 SF being a notable exception). It's still debatable whether he's better than Borg in my mind.

Pete was pretty near unstoppable on the old grass. The only way you can argue for Djokovic is if you take the "muh 90's players are generally inferior to 00's and 10's players" stance. To be fair, it's a reasonable one because equipment underwent some major evolutions in the late 90's and early 00's. We switched from gut to poly, went with bigger racket heads, and even changed the Wimbledon surface. But it misses the context and as a result makes the debate useless. I mean, yes of course Sampras at Wimbledon would look very old-fashioned compared to Djokovic but this is nothing that Djokovic himself does better or Sampras does worse. This line of reasoning eschews talent in favor of conditions which doesn't make sense in a greatness debate imo. As far as pure talent goes, though, Sampras was way more impressive in his era than Djokovic is in this one, there's really no way you can deny this given his absolutely absurd stats at Wimbledon (and particularly the later stages) and his game which was tailor-made for those conditions in a way that no one else has replicated.

Sampras's actual level on grass is much more worthy of a comparison to Federer rather than Djokovic.

 

[Djokovic_is_the_best#1]

Tied in my opinion. Although Novak beating Fed 3 times in Wimbledon finals might give him the edge.

 

[Genie Of the Bank]

Two more Wimbledon titles to surpass Federer. One to equal Sampras.

Push it to the limit (Djoković tribute)

 

[Deleted member 762343]

LOL somebody is butthurt

You don’t have to reply if you don’t have any good argument to give. Correcting a false statement is not being butthurt. I’m just helping you understand how tennis works.

 

[Spencer Gore]

If he wins one more you probably put him above Federer but level with Sampras.

 

[Mainad]

But Djokovic has only been beaten by MuryGoat in the final so that doesn't count

Well it certainly does in the record books and is, in fact, 1 of only 4 occasions in which Djokovic got straight-setted in a Slam final.

 

[Parabolica]

Let's put it this way, who would win peak vs peak on these two surfaces?

Fast grass: Sampras

Slow grass: Djokovic

Neither played on both surfaces but Fed did and won on both.

 

[jackson vile]

Always been

 

[Spencer Gore]

Neither played on both surfaces but Fed did and won on both.

When did Federer win on fast grass?

 

[GhostOfNKDM]

Sampras fans who love Novak working on their math right now. Pretty sure a made-up constant called 'fast grass' will be added to balance the equation.

 

[Defcon]

Never.

On real Wimby grass, before they slowed it down and made the balls less pressurized, Sampras would destroy the joker.

 

[Incognito]

If Djokovic wins another Wimbledon title, he'll have equal titles as Sampras but more finals and a winning H2h against Federer and Nadal. Is this enough to put him ahead of Sampras as a greater Wimbledon player?

nope, played 5 sets against Murray at his peakest peak and lost all of them.

 

[Third Serve]

SaintPetros would love this thread

 

[big ted]

Federer is the greatest grass court player ever with 8 titles and sampras follows him.

The slowing down of courts in last decade hurt Federer but he made 4 finals. If not for djokovic he could have had 10-11 wimbledons by now.

and if sampras played on the slower grass he'd have less than 7..
whos to say the "faster grass" is more authentic? its been like that for 20 years now lol

 

[Defcon]

No. Sampras and Federer are almost equal as far as Wimbledon is considered. Novak can win few more but would still be considered below the two. It doesn't take much different skills these days to win one slam over another. The game is so much homogenized. During Sampras' era, the list of players in second week of French Open was completely different than for the ones in Wimbledon. Even during Federer's early years, you could see him playing a lot of S&V to win his Wimbledons. Hence for me those players were the best that I saw on grass.

Wimbledon changed the surface toappease the clay courters who used to whine constantly. There is no way in hell Nadal makes Wimby Sf/F le alone win it, with fast grass and fast balls.

btw Fed played Sampras on fast grass in 2001 and beat him, and they both SV'd on nearly every 1st AND 2nd serve. That is the kind of skill Novak/Nadal/Andy could never have in a million years.

Fed could play any style, any surface, any equipment and still be the best in the world. Thats what makes him GOAT forever.

 

[Defcon]

and if sampras played on the slower grass he'd have less than 7..
whos to say the "faster grass" is more authentic? its been like that for 20 years now lol

What a strange thing to say! So tomorrow if USO and AO switch to sand, then in a few years you'll say 'sand is more authentic hard court surface' ??

 

[Rosstour]

Sampras won 7 wimbledon in 8 years and in those times careers ended by 30, unlike now when people are playing till their late 30s.

Slam Counts now are 1.5 times of what it were in the 20th century,

Sampras's 7 slams is worth 10-11 slams now.

It is not wrong to say that Sampras is the greatest on grass or at the very least on par with Federer, not below.

In those days, Agassi played until he was 35. Pete being washed by 30 is on Pete.

Only on TW and only re Fed is 7/7 > 8/11.

 

[Adam Copeland]

In those days, Agassi played until he was 35. Pete being washed by 30 is on Pete.

Only on TW and only re Fed is 7/7 > 8/11.

Agassi won his last slam as he turned 33
Pete won his last slam as he turned 31

Big 3 are competing for slams at 36 and winning them, Federer did, Novak will too.

Pete could have also went on till 35-36 if he were from this era, look at Gael Monfil go 5 sets with Berretini.

Pete's 7/7 would have become 10/11 if he got an extra 6-7 years that Federer got.

 

[big ted]

What a strange thing to say! So tomorrow if USO and AO switch to sand, then in a few years you'll say 'sand is more authentic hard court surface' ??

no i just dont think either is more authentic than the other
so i dont think older grass should get extra props?

 

[Mustard]

I can't imagine Federer losing a match at Wimbledon like the way Ivanisevic and Krajicek beat Sampras there.

 

[Parabolica]

When did Federer win on fast grass?

His first win was on fast grass. You could argue that his 2nd and 3rd wins were also on fast grass.

 

[Crazy Finn]

I'm always heartened to see youngsters giving old-timers their due and Borg above Novak isn't that big a stretch at all. What I object to is this notion of Novak having "overachieved" at Wimbledon. You don't win any major 6 times by accident, and nobody who can b!tch-slap Rafa from the baseline as in '11/'18 or flat-out outclass Fred as in '15 can be said to be an overachiever.

...

All of which does reinforce the idea that despite Borg's 5 Mac w/3 was the superior lawnmower at their best. Kinda like Novak vs. Fed, the difference of course being that the latter is both better and greater, but you can see why (cherry-picked) numbers don't always tell the full story.

Posts like this make reading threads on Tennis Talk worthwhile. Thank you.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Crud era be cruddin'.

 

[slipgrip93]

Racquets and strings were in degrees significantly different since around post 2000 ( and thicker beam midplus racquets were often wide-body clunkers (like wilson profiles) and mostly not as light & quick to manuever as post 2000), which also seemed to be the end of s&v even at wimbledon by mid 2000's and swingvolleying became more popular. I would give the edge to Sampras, imo, but it would be interesting to see how the big 3 would fare back then stuck with that era's equipment and strings only, from the mid 80's throughout the 90's. ( A proof of difference in example is that even most rec and ttw players seem to choose to use new or racquets of at least models post 2003, not the old models of the late 80's and 90's like the ps85, max200g, 6.1 classic 95, or pog, etc. )

(Lendl on playing with today's modern strings)

 

[Spencer Gore]

His first win was on fast grass. You could argue that his 2nd and 3rd wins were also on fast grass.

Not this again.

Federer's first win was on slow grass. He played on the fast grass twice. He lost in the first round on both occasions.

 

[Mainad]

I can't imagine Federer losing a match at Wimbledon like the way Ivanisevic and Krajicek beat Sampras there.

We won't mention the 2012 Olympic final then. Well it was at Wimbledon.

Jusr sayin'.

 

[Tshooter]

 

[TheNachoMan]

We won't mention the 2012 Olympic final then. Well it was at Wimbledon.

Murray should give half of that gold medal to Delpo. Him and Fed played for over 4 hours

 

[Mainad]

Murray should give half of that gold medal to Delpo. Him and Fed played for over 4 hours

Boo hoo. Not looking for excuses, just stating the facts.

 

[NonP]

I think Novak has overachieved by about 2 titles at Wimbledon. His general level of play on grass seems befitting a 4-time champion, not a 6-time winner, and he's been able to get away with playing sub-par tennis in 2019 and 2021 because the grass competition has been dead for years (the Wimby 2018 SF being a notable exception). It's still debatable whether he's better than Borg in my mind.

Pete was pretty near unstoppable on the old grass. The only way you can argue for Djokovic is if you take the "muh 90's players are generally inferior to 00's and 10's players" stance. To be fair, it's a reasonable one because equipment underwent some major evolutions in the late 90's and early 00's. We switched from gut to poly, went with bigger racket heads, and even changed the Wimbledon surface. But it misses the context and as a result makes the debate useless. I mean, yes of course Sampras at Wimbledon would look very old-fashioned compared to Djokovic but this is nothing that Djokovic himself does better or Sampras does worse. This line of reasoning eschews talent in favor of conditions which doesn't make sense in a greatness debate imo. As far as pure talent goes, though, Sampras was way more impressive in his era than Djokovic is in this one, there's really no way you can deny this given his absolutely absurd stats at Wimbledon (and particularly the later stages) and his game which was tailor-made for those conditions in a way that no one else has replicated.

Sampras's actual level on grass is much more worthy of a comparison to Federer rather than Djokovic.

But where are these two gimme titles coming from? '18 and '21? Last I checked nobody kept Anderson from finishing off Fed and Isner earlier in the QF and SF, and of course Novak won the de facto final vs. Rafa in the other SF.

Granted '21 was a joke draw, but what about the ones he couldn't conquer due to a worthy opponent? Here are his non-W results at SW19 since '07 when he made the 1st SF:

2007 - SF, lost 1-all to Nadal (retirement)
2008 - 2R, 0-3 to Safin
2009 - QF, 1-3 to Haas
2010 - SF, 0-3 to Berdych
2012 - SF, 1-3 to Federer
2013 - F, 0-3 to Murray
2016 - 3R, 1-3 to Querrey
2017 - QF, 0-1 to Berdych (R)

We can safely eliminate 2007-10/16-17, and it's fair to say his '13 version with no OH ain't beating a top GCer, either. That leaves us with the '12 loss to Fred, who won a dominant 63.6% of his games for the fortnight. And considering Nole won an impressive 61.8% himself it stands to reason that he bags another Wimby that year sans such a big stumbling block.

So his joke '21 W more or less cancels out his non-joke '12 L. Now let's revisit Borg's own runs, this time with prominent opponents listed along with his GW%s:

1976 - 65.52% (Dibley, Vilas, Tanner, Nastase)
1977 - 58.48% (Edmondson, Nastase, Gerulaitis, Connors)
1978 - 61.28% (Amaya, Okker, Connors)
1979 - 59.84% (Amritraj, Okker, Connors, Tanner)
1980 - 61.38% (Gottfried, McEnroe)
1981 - 58.82% (Gerulaitis, Connors, McEnroe)

The one thing that sticks out is the relatively low GW%s for a baseliner, which becomes understandable once you realize 1) Borg S&Ved on most 1st serves and 2) like a true dirtballer a la Nadal he struggled to adjust to lawn tennis in early rounds, hence the 5-set scares vs. Edmondson and the big-serving Amaya/Amritraj. But pay attention to another trend: the more high-profile Borg's opponents, the lower his GW%. The one exception is '76 with the 3rd highest % of the OE, but as great a player as Vilas was the dirtmeister was never a serious threat to the Big 3 of Borg, Jimbo and Mac at SW19. Ditto the likes of Dibley, Okker and Gottfried, though Tanner, Nastase and Gerulaitis were admittedly a class above (but still below the Big 3).

Now replace any of these guys with '12 Fed or another stud. Does Borg still prevail a la the '80 F? Perhaps, but we're still looking at 5 vs. Novak's 6. I just don't see how Djoker in his championship form suddenly drops 2 vs. Borg's draws. At most I'm willing to grant that '80 Mac might edge out Novak of whatever season (I don't see thirtysomething Jimbo besting prime Nole). That still leaves him with 5, ergo Borg = Djokovic on grass in the grand scheme of things.

Wimbledon changed the surface toappease the clay courters who used to whine constantly. There is no way in hell Nadal makes Wimby Sf/F le alone win it, with fast grass and fast balls.

btw Fed played Sampras on fast grass in 2001 and beat him, and they both SV'd on nearly every 1st AND 2nd serve. That is the kind of skill Novak/Nadal/Andy could never have in a million years.

Fed could play any style, any surface, any equipment and still be the best in the world. Thats what makes him GOAT forever.

For the umpteenth time 2000 was the last year with the "fast grass." None other than former head groundsman Eddie Seaward has clarified on record that the 100% ryegrass was in place beginning with the 2001 edition:

What player had the biggest impact on slowing courts down?

So over the last few decades, with racquet and string tech, it’s generally accepted courts have slowed to keep up w the technology and speed potential elsewhere. But in terms of actual players - which one(s) do you think was the greatest catalyst for slowing surfaces? I remember watching...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

And y'all really should for once consult the ATP/UTS sites which show, respectively, that service stats and court speeds have been increasing since the '90s. More on the "slowdown" myth here:

Who has better forehand: Sampras or Djokovic

The greatest trick Novak ever pulled was convincing the world he has a weak forehand.

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

I can't imagine Federer losing a match at Wimbledon like the way Ivanisevic and Krajicek beat Sampras there.

Then you're not trying hard enough. Pistol won a mere 55.9% of his games at '96 Wimbledon, well below his 60.1% average for the rest of his 1993-2000 reign which coincidentally is almost equal to Fed's 60.4% for the '13 GC season where he was upset in 4 sets by S&Ving Stakhovsky come Slam time. Pete was clearly spent from his grueling run at RG just a couple weeks before, and we all saw what happened to a fatigued Fed himself at the London Olympics (as @Mainad just pointed out) when he faced Murray on the same hallowed Centre Court where he'd dispatched him only a month ago. Besides that QF was an ATG outing from Krajicek (a stellar 61.2% of GW for the fortnight), superior to anything Fed faced in his Ws with the only arguable exceptions of 2007-08 Nadal.

'92 Pete was better at 59.5%, but he was still somewhat green and Goran in the SF was virtually untouchable on serve (incomplete, but 36 aces and 58.6% of all serves unreturned should give you an idea) a la his 2nd and 4th sets in the '95 SF. No matter which version of Fed (or whoever else, really) shows up this most likely goes at least to 5. If anything young Pistol did well to steal a set from that Crazy Goran.

 

[Sudacafan]

Only if Djokovic vaccinates for the next Wimbledon title.

 

[abmk]

But where are these two gimme titles coming from? '18 and '21?

19 and 21 obviously.
19 not a gimme, but seriously lucky to get through along with being clutch.
His form wasn't that great in Wim 19 SF/F (only a little better in Wim 21 SF/F tbh).

I just don't see how Djoker in his championship form suddenly drops 2 vs. Borg's draws.

easy, he drops Wim 19 and Wim 21.

That leaves us with the '12 loss to Fred, who won a dominant 63.6% of his games for the fortnight. And considering Nole won an impressive 61.8% himself it stands to reason that he bags another Wimby that year sans such a big stumbling block.

no, doesn't have to be as big a stumbling block as 12 fed. Djoko could've lost to Murray in Wim 12 for example. I'd actually have Murray as slight favorite.
murray's variety troubled djoko back then. He was playing a little better I think.
Keep in mind, he did beat Djoko in straights at Olympics on grass a few weeks later.

 

[NonP]

Only if Djokovic vaccinates for the next Wimbledon title.

I'm tempted to 2nd this. (For real.)

19 and 21 obviously.
19 not a gimme, but seriously lucky to get through along with being clutch.
His form wasn't that great in Wim 19 SF/F (only a little better in Wim 21 SF/F tbh).

How can '19 be a lucky title when he had to fend off 2 CPs? Forget Fed's age for a second. The guy held serve 94% of the time, won Halle vs. the likes of Tsonga, TBA and Goffin, AND had just dispatched a good Rafa in the SF. That's a worthy opponent no matter how you slice it.

no, doesn't have to be as big a stumbling block as 12 fed. Djoko could've lost to Murray in Wim 12 for example. I'd actually have Murray as slight favorite.
murray's variety troubled djoko back then. He was playing a little better I think.
Keep in mind, he did beat Djoko in straights at Olympics on grass a few weeks later.

I agree '12 Muzz would be no pushover, but Novak's net/OH yips weren't nowhere near as bad then and Andy wasn't going thru the draw as easily. I still prefer Nole at that particular edition. He has always disappointed/underwhelmed at the Os so I don't think their later London meeting is all that relevant.

 

[abmk]

How can '19 be a lucky title when he had to fend off 2 CPs? Forget Fed's age for a second. The guy held serve 94% of the time, won Halle vs. the likes of Tsonga, TBA and Goffin, AND had just dispatched a good Rafa in the SF. That's a worthy opponent no matter how you slice it.

Because fed played 3 terrible TBs in a single match at Wimbledon including one where he was up 5-3 or 5-4. A damn near impossibility if you had asked me before the match or for any previous version of Fed.
Djoko's level was worse than fed's in the match. He just snuck through because fed faltered in those 3 TBs and Djoko was clutch when down MPs.

I see talk about Djoko hitting no UEs in the 3 TBs combined. Well no sh*t. fed was hitting the UEs. Djoko was merely solid in the TBs. Djoko only hit like 2 winners in all the 3 TBs combined IIRC.

Djoko played 2 clearly below par sets (2&4). And a good opponent keeping his head would've taken atleast one of the other 3 (1/3/5)

I don't think there has been a worse Wimbledon final winning level counting from Borg 76 atleast.

I agree '12 Muzz would be no pushover, but Novak's net/OH yips weren't nowhere near as bad then and Andy wasn't going thru the draw as easily. I still prefer Nole at that particular edition. He has always disappointed/underwhelmed at the Os so I don't think their later London meeting is all that relevant.

Djoko missed a crucial overhead at the closing stages of 3rd set vs Fed in Wim 12.
Murray also won their Wim 13 encounter easily (granted Nole was coming off delpo 5-setter), but if pre-Becker Djoko was truly that superior to Wim 12/13 Murray, he'd have snatched a set IMO. We have Oly 12 match that cannot be ignored.
in 2012, Murray had taken Djoko to 5 sets at AO (his best slam), beat him at USO.

Just don't see the evidence for being confident with Nole vs Murray even if you think he has a slight edge.

 

[Nole_King]

Wimbledon changed the surface toappease the clay courters who used to whine constantly. There is no way in hell Nadal makes Wimby Sf/F le alone win it, with fast grass and fast balls.

btw Fed played Sampras on fast grass in 2001 and beat him, and they both SV'd on nearly every 1st AND 2nd serve. That is the kind of skill Novak/Nadal/Andy could never have in a million years.

Fed could play any style, any surface, any equipment and still be the best in the world. Thats what makes him GOAT forever.

I dont know about GOAT and all but looking at what Dustin Brown did to Nadal on grass, esp at Halle, there's no doubt that he would have struggled big time in conditions that used to be there at Wimby. People may come and say that he would have adapted had that been the case, but I doubt. Nadal has always had his priorities set, even in this era of homogenization, where he regularly skipped events in order to make sure he is in prime condition for clay. Bring in more spice and variety and I see him doing this even more. Can't blame the guy though. Given his the nature of his game and also his physical condition time and again, he needed to maximize his outcomes.