Djokovic now indisputedly a better grasscourtplayer than Nadal.....

[DarthFed]

that Nole is better on grass than a washed up Fed.
Darth.. that is what "we" all have been saying.. You keep implying that Djoker is the 2nd greatest grass court player you have seen after Roger. I have been saying that defeating 33-34 Roger isn't the same as when Rafa defeated Roger in his prime years but you have been adamant that Rafa accomplishments against Roger is overrated. So Darth, which is it

Actually I rate Roger as the 2nd best grass court player ever. Nole obviously isn't top 3 yet on grass. And 2008 wasn't Roger's prime, he had clearly gone down a notch. I'd say it was similar to Nad's 2012, pretty good year but not close to what we had seen before. Interestingly enough both rebounded well (Roger in 2009 and Rafa in 2013)

Interesting. You have Sampras above Roger? I would disagree. At Roger's peak, there was an inevitability about his runs, that surpassed even the Pistol. But it's a close run thing

I'm going off if they were playing each other on the "real" grass. On the current grass I think Roger would have a clear edge while on the faster grass Pete would have the slight edge due to having the better serve. There'd be a lot of tiebreaks for sure. As far as "greatness" goes on the surface I'd have them about tied right now. Pete's 7-0 is majestic while Roger obviously aged a lot better and is still very relevant on the surface in his 30's. I still think that this current generation is fortunate the grass is how it is otherwise Roger would be sitting on more than 7.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

Federer is the grass/wimbledon no1..140+wins is up there. and 15 titles is an open era record.

and 7-0 isn't as majestic as 7-3..thats a Wimbledon record. 10 Wimbledon finals. majestic

 

[Billie]

It's always amusing to hear Cali's grandiose statements about sports he knows so little about.

Yeah, made me chuckle a couple of times while reading it.

While it is a great game and I grew up watching it, I must confess that the corruption and match fixing that has gone for years now cooled my enthusiasm for soccer a little bit.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Actually I rate Roger as the 2nd best grass court player ever. Nole obviously isn't top 3 yet on grass. And 2008 wasn't Roger's prime, he had clearly gone down a notch. I'd say it was similar to Nad's 2012, pretty good year but not close to what we had seen before. Interestingly enough both rebounded well (Roger in 2009 and Rafa in 2013)

Interesting. You have Sampras above Roger? I would disagree. At Roger's peak, there was an inevitability about his runs, that surpassed even the Pistol. But it's a close run thing

I'm going off if they were playing each other on the "real" grass. On the current grass I think Roger would have a clear edge while on the faster grass Pete would have the slight edge due to having the better serve. There'd be a lot of tiebreaks for sure. As far as "greatness" goes on the surface I'd have them about tied right now. Pete's 7-0 is majestic while Roger obviously aged a lot better and is still very relevant on the surface in his 30's. I still think that this current generation is fortunate the grass is how it is otherwise Roger would be sitting on more than 7.

Sampras was the best grass court player in the open era, now you are correct with your analysis. No Roger wouldn't have more, he is right wear he belongs. Darth, Roger has a fantastic game but he isn't perfect. Again, you are willing diminish your beloved Roger just to disparage Rafa. Remember this Darth, "A real champion can acknowledge the accomplishments of others even if it at their expense."

 

[Federberg]

Interesting. You have Sampras above Roger? I would disagree. At Roger's peak, there was an inevitability about his runs, that surpassed even the Pistol. But it's a close run thing

I'm going off if they were playing each other on the "real" grass. On the current grass I think Roger would have a clear edge while on the faster grass Pete would have the slight edge due to having the better serve. There'd be a lot of tiebreaks for sure. As far as "greatness" goes on the surface I'd have them about tied right now. Pete's 7-0 is majestic while Roger obviously aged a lot better and is still very relevant on the surface in his 30's. I still think that this current generation is fortunate the grass is how it is otherwise Roger would be sitting on more than 7.

Sampras was the best grass court player in the open era, now you are correct with your analysis. No Roger wouldn't have more, he is right wear he belongs. Darth, Roger has a fantastic game but he isn't perfect. Again, you are willing diminish your beloved Roger just to disparage Rafa. Remember this Darth, "A real champion can acknowledge the accomplishments of others even if it at their expense."

While it is all woulda coulda, I have to say that if the courts had been faster, more like what it used to have been it would have been tougher for Rafa to adapt in my opinion. I don't know whether Roger would have won more, although I have a suspicion that it might have been more difficult for Rafa to get to the final in 2008 under those changed circumstances. But it is what it is, and it's pointless speculating, so I'm not even sure why I'm doing it :eyepop

 

[DarthFed]

Interesting. You have Sampras above Roger? I would disagree. At Roger's peak, there was an inevitability about his runs, that surpassed even the Pistol. But it's a close run thing

I'm going off if they were playing each other on the "real" grass. On the current grass I think Roger would have a clear edge while on the faster grass Pete would have the slight edge due to having the better serve. There'd be a lot of tiebreaks for sure. As far as "greatness" goes on the surface I'd have them about tied right now. Pete's 7-0 is majestic while Roger obviously aged a lot better and is still very relevant on the surface in his 30's. I still think that this current generation is fortunate the grass is how it is otherwise Roger would be sitting on more than 7.

Sampras was the best grass court player in the open era, now you are correct with your analysis. No Roger wouldn't have more, he is right wear he belongs. Darth, Roger has a fantastic game but he isn't perfect. Again, you are willing diminish your beloved Roger just to disparage Rafa. Remember this Darth, "A real champion can acknowledge the accomplishments of others even if it at their expense."

I've already had this convo with BS...fact of the matter is that a faster, lower bouncer surface = a stronger Federer. Any argument against that statement is delusional. Now, maybe he'd have been a little more vulnerable against guys with huge serves like Roddick or Karlovic but he'd have been far less vulnerable to the far greater players (Rafa and Nole).

But yeah it is all speculation. Roger has done great for himself at Wimbledon despite the fact it could've been kinder surface wise, no doubt about that. There is also no doubt that Nole ranks higher than Rafa on grass and not just currently. I don't think I've "diminished Roger" to disparage Rafa at all in this thread.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Actually I rate Roger as the 2nd best grass court player ever. Nole obviously isn't top 3 yet on grass. And 2008 wasn't Roger's prime, he had clearly gone down a notch. I'd say it was similar to Nad's 2012, pretty good year but not close to what we had seen before. Interestingly enough both rebounded well (Roger in 2009 and Rafa in 2013)

Interesting. You have Sampras above Roger? I would disagree. At Roger's peak, there was an inevitability about his runs, that surpassed even the Pistol. But it's a close run thing

I'm going off if they were playing each other on the "real" grass. On the current grass I think Roger would have a clear edge while on the faster grass Pete would have the slight edge due to having the better serve. There'd be a lot of tiebreaks for sure. As far as "greatness" goes on the surface I'd have them about tied right now. Pete's 7-0 is majestic while Roger obviously aged a lot better and is still very relevant on the surface in his 30's. I still think that this current generation is fortunate the grass is how it is otherwise Roger would be sitting on more than 7.

1. People forget that Roger's original style on grass is ultra aggressive S&V. It is because of the
slowing down of the grass that Roger adapted and included a significant baseline game on grass too. So, we have no reason to believe that Roger would perform worse on "real" grass.

2. You can take any measure, such as no. of Wimby's won, no. of finals reached, no. of grass titles won, no. of grass matches won, percentage of wins on grass, Roger is always equal (just the first one) or better (on all others) in comparison to Pete. So, it is not fair to say they are tied.

3. Finally, you should remember that Roger has 100% H2H against Pete on grass as he won their sole duel (of course there is age difference and when they met Sampras was beginning his decline).

 

[Federberg]

Interesting. You have Sampras above Roger? I would disagree. At Roger's peak, there was an inevitability about his runs, that surpassed even the Pistol. But it's a close run thing

I'm going off if they were playing each other on the "real" grass. On the current grass I think Roger would have a clear edge while on the faster grass Pete would have the slight edge due to having the better serve. There'd be a lot of tiebreaks for sure. As far as "greatness" goes on the surface I'd have them about tied right now. Pete's 7-0 is majestic while Roger obviously aged a lot better and is still very relevant on the surface in his 30's. I still think that this current generation is fortunate the grass is how it is otherwise Roger would be sitting on more than 7.

1. People forget that Roger's original style on grass is ultra aggressive S&V. It is because of the
slowing down of the grass that Roger adapted and included a significant baseline game on grass too. So, we have no reason to believe that Roger would perform worse on "real" grass.

2. You can take any measure, such as no. of Wimby's won, no. of finals reached, no. of grass titles won, no. of grass matches won, percentage of wins on grass, Roger is always equal (just the first one) or better (on all others) in comparison to Pete. So, it is not fair to say they are tied.

3. Finally, you should remember that Roger has 100% H2H against Pete on grass as he won their sole duel (of course there is age difference and when they met Sampras was beginning his decline).

This

 

[brokenshoelace]

There's no point in saying "if the grass was played fast" when comparing Sampras to Federer. You just compare their achievements on the grass they played on. I think in his prime, Pete had a little bit more of an unbeatable aura at Wimbledon but that's just me. Their achievements are very close if we're comparing their respective primes and there's a case for both, but Sampras edges it out for me. There's something to be said for Fed's Wimbledon finals in his 30's though, but I wouldn't put any stock in that one match they played as far as this conversation is concerned. It's one match that went to 5 sets when one was past his prime and the other hadn't entered his. Too small of a sample.

 

[Federberg]

There's no point in saying "if the grass was played fast" when comparing Sampras to Federer. You just compare their achievements on the grass they played on. I think in his prime, Pete had a little bit more of an unbeatable aura at Wimbledon but that's just me. Their achievements are very close if we're comparing their respective primes and there's a case for both, but Sampras edges it out for me. There's something to be said for Fed's Wimbledon finals in his 30's though, but I wouldn't put any stock in that one match they played as far as this conversation is concerned. It's one match that went to 5 sets when one was past his prime and the other hadn't entered his. Too small of a sample.

I have no problem with this view at all. It's a very close run thing to me. I just objected to the idea that Sampras might be considered better on fast grass. Roger had to adapt to the conditions as they are now, but the evidence supports him being equally good, possibly even better on a faster surface. If one considers the body of work on grass, then Roger unquestionably has the superior cv at this point, just from longevity and more finals alone. Not to talk about other grass court titles (more than anyone else in the open era I believe). But I was primarily objecting to Fiero's "I wouldn't put Roger even in the top 5 of true grass court players!" Which I found typically hysterical :blush:

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

^^lol ignorant statements like that make me laugh..'true grass' lolwut what is it now then ? false grass ?, non-grass grass ?, surreal grass ?,

there are hundreds of types/strains of grass. just because people get nostalgic for the old courts they watched on tv when they were growing up. the courts were changed nearly 15yrs ago, how long are people going to live in the past ?.

usopen used to be on grass for example (and clay), cincinnatti was played on clay in the 1970s, stuff changes..deal with it.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I'm going off if they were playing each other on the "real" grass. On the current grass I think Roger would have a clear edge while on the faster grass Pete would have the slight edge due to having the better serve. There'd be a lot of tiebreaks for sure. As far as "greatness" goes on the surface I'd have them about tied right now. Pete's 7-0 is majestic while Roger obviously aged a lot better and is still very relevant on the surface in his 30's. I still think that this current generation is fortunate the grass is how it is otherwise Roger would be sitting on more than 7.

1. People forget that Roger's original style on grass is ultra aggressive S&V. It is because of the
slowing down of the grass that Roger adapted and included a significant baseline game on grass too. So, we have no reason to believe that Roger would perform worse on "real" grass.

2. You can take any measure, such as no. of Wimby's won, no. of finals reached, no. of grass titles won, no. of grass matches won, percentage of wins on grass, Roger is always equal (just the first one) or better (on all others) in comparison to Pete. So, it is not fair to say they are tied.

3. Finally, you should remember that Roger has 100% H2H against Pete on grass as he won their sole duel (of course there is age difference and when they met Sampras was beginning his decline).

This

Did you mean to say something here? I see only one word "This"

 

[Federberg]

1. People forget that Roger's original style on grass is ultra aggressive S&V. It is because of the
slowing down of the grass that Roger adapted and included a significant baseline game on grass too. So, we have no reason to believe that Roger would perform worse on "real" grass.

2. You can take any measure, such as no. of Wimby's won, no. of finals reached, no. of grass titles won, no. of grass matches won, percentage of wins on grass, Roger is always equal (just the first one) or better (on all others) in comparison to Pete. So, it is not fair to say they are tied.

3. Finally, you should remember that Roger has 100% H2H against Pete on grass as he won their sole duel (of course there is age difference and when they met Sampras was beginning his decline).

This

Did you mean to say something here? I see only one word "This"

:laydownlaughing
I was unreservedly agreeing with everything you wrote :clap

 

[Fiero425]

^^lol Ignorant statements like that make me laugh..'true grass' lolwut what is it now then ? false grass ?, non-grass grass ?, surreal grass ?,

There are hundreds of types/strains of grass. just because people get nostalgic for the old courts they watched on TV when they were growing up. the courts were changed nearly 15 yrs ago. How long are people going to live in the past?

US Open used to be on grass for example (and clay), Cincinnatti was played on clay in the 1970s, stuff changes..deal with it.

One person's ignorant statement is another person's TRUTH! B.M.A.H.A.F.U.! :angel: :dodgy:

 

[DarthFed]

Interesting. You have Sampras above Roger? I would disagree. At Roger's peak, there was an inevitability about his runs, that surpassed even the Pistol. But it's a close run thing

I'm going off if they were playing each other on the "real" grass. On the current grass I think Roger would have a clear edge while on the faster grass Pete would have the slight edge due to having the better serve. There'd be a lot of tiebreaks for sure. As far as "greatness" goes on the surface I'd have them about tied right now. Pete's 7-0 is majestic while Roger obviously aged a lot better and is still very relevant on the surface in his 30's. I still think that this current generation is fortunate the grass is how it is otherwise Roger would be sitting on more than 7.

1. People forget that Roger's original style on grass is ultra aggressive S&V. It is because of the
slowing down of the grass that Roger adapted and included a significant baseline game on grass too. So, we have no reason to believe that Roger would perform worse on "real" grass.

2. You can take any measure, such as no. of Wimby's won, no. of finals reached, no. of grass titles won, no. of grass matches won, percentage of wins on grass, Roger is always equal (just the first one) or better (on all others) in comparison to Pete. So, it is not fair to say they are tied.

3. Finally, you should remember that Roger has 100% H2H against Pete on grass as he won their sole duel (of course there is age difference and when they met Sampras was beginning his decline).

1. I agree. Roger would've flourished on the faster grass. My point was that in a H2H match with prime Sampras the current grass would suit him more. But as I mentioned above Roger very well may be sitting on more Wimbledon's if it was playing faster and lower as it used to.

2. Roger does have the edges mentioned, though finals reached again gets overrated. The main edge is more grass titles. So I would argue that Roger has been greater on grass but at Wimbledon I'd have it pretty much even. Many would argue the additional finals gives him the edge, I'd say the main thing he has over Pete at Wimbledon is the 5 in a row (Pete only won 4 in a row) while Pete has the edge of not dropping a final. 2008 Wimby didn't happen with Pete, but on the flip side he aged way worse than Roger and wasn't even playing after age 31. I don't hold these losses in the finals against geriatric Fed, but the one at Wimbledon 2008 was just going on 27.

3. Pretty much meaningless. One was past his prime and the other hadn't even entered it.

 

[Great Hands]

I'm going off if they were playing each other on the "real" grass. On the current grass I think Roger would have a clear edge while on the faster grass Pete would have the slight edge due to having the better serve. There'd be a lot of tiebreaks for sure. As far as "greatness" goes on the surface I'd have them about tied right now. Pete's 7-0 is majestic while Roger obviously aged a lot better and is still very relevant on the surface in his 30's. I still think that this current generation is fortunate the grass is how it is otherwise Roger would be sitting on more than 7.

1. People forget that Roger's original style on grass is ultra aggressive S&V. It is because of the
slowing down of the grass that Roger adapted and included a significant baseline game on grass too. So, we have no reason to believe that Roger would perform worse on "real" grass.

2. You can take any measure, such as no. of Wimby's won, no. of finals reached, no. of grass titles won, no. of grass matches won, percentage of wins on grass, Roger is always equal (just the first one) or better (on all others) in comparison to Pete. So, it is not fair to say they are tied.

3. Finally, you should remember that Roger has 100% H2H against Pete on grass as he won their sole duel (of course there is age difference and when they met Sampras was beginning his decline).

1. I agree. Roger would've flourished on the faster grass. My point was that in a H2H match with prime Sampras the current grass would suit him more. But as I mentioned above Roger very well may be sitting on more Wimbledon's if it was playing faster and lower as it used to.

2. Roger does have the edges mentioned, though finals reached again gets overrated. The main edge is more grass titles. So I would argue that Roger has been greater on grass but at Wimbledon I'd have it pretty much even. Many would argue the additional finals gives him the edge, I'd say the main thing he has over Pete at Wimbledon is the 5 in a row (Pete only won 4 in a row) while Pete has the edge of not dropping a final. 2008 Wimby didn't happen with Pete, but on the flip side he aged way worse than Roger and wasn't even playing after age 31. I don't hold these losses in the finals against geriatric Fed, but the one at Wimbledon 2008 was just going on 27.

3. Pretty much meaningless. One was past his prime and the other hadn't even entered it.

So if Pete had, for example, not lost to George Bastl in 2002 in the second round, but had in fact got all the way to the final, that would have made him a less good player on grass?

This is illogical.