Early Wimbledon Talk

[the AntiPusher]

Federer or Samprs at 22-25? One set only? Federer. And I don't even have to think too hard about it.I did go back and look up the stats though to check out exactly what their numbers were just so I could think about how they were playing at that stage of their careers. That would have been 1994-1997 for Pete -

AO - W, F, 3R, W
French - QF, 1R, SF, 3R
Wimbledon - W, W, QF, W
USO - 4R, W, W, 4R
Tour Finals - W, n/a, W, W

1994 - 77-12, 10 titles
1995 - 72-16, 5 titles
1996 - 65-11, 8 titles
1997 - 55-12, 8 titles


Federer turned 22 in August 2003, so I would put his 22-25 as 2004-2007 - possibly the 4 greatest consecutive years in the Open era -

AO - W, SF, W, W
FO - 3R, SF, F, F
Wimbledon - W, W, W, W
USO - W, W, W, W
Tour Finals - W, RU, W, W

2004 - 74-6, 11 titles
2005 - 81-5 - 11 titles
2006 - 92-5 - 12 titles
2007 - 68-9 - 8 titles

Plus - let's be honest here...Roger was just a helluva lot more fun to watch than Pete was and he had way more game than Pete did. Pete was pretty one-dimensional when it comes right down to it. By 2005-2006 I'd say Roger just had too much game for Pete - especially over 1 set. .

Remember,the critica, is for only one set
Not for one set ..at age 22, I would choose Pete..

 

[Moxie]

As far as putting Nadal ahead of Andy and Novak? That's a coin flip, isn't it? I don't care what his clay court results were. The reality is - he hasn't been past the 4th round at Wimbeldon since 2011. Another reality check - check out the average rank of the guys he beat on clay this year - 34.12.

Monte Carlo - 45, 20, 41, 13, 24
Barcelona - 69, 66, 94, 84, 9
Madrid - 29, 20, 10, 2, 9
Rome - 73, 14, 7
Roland Garros - 45, 46, 64, 18, 21, 7, 3

I may be alone in this but I am not impressed. If he's playing even half-way decent he should be able to beat these guys on clay in his sleep. On grass though? That's whole other ball game - and he knows it, too, or else he wouldn't have said his grass game isn't up to par and signed up for a grass court exhibition with Andy Murray this week.

Also, I must be missing something because I don't see how the "pack" is any closer now than it was 2 years ago. Dimitrov got hot at the start of the year - and has promptly fizzled. Stan can't get his crap together on a weekly basis and his French final was as much about Djokovic and Murray's decline and Federer's absence as it was anything he did on the court. Raonic was never very talented in the first place. Cilic is like a leaky roof that someone keeps plugging the hole but never reroofs. Nishikori just does not have the mental or physical gifts to stay with the top guys for 5 sets. Tsonga, Berdych, Monfils? The ship sailed for those guys 5 years ago. The young guns? Thiem overplays and has yet to learn how to peak for the big events or sting together back-to-back big wins. Kyrgios can't stay healthy - or interested. Zverev is still on an upwards learning curve in big matches, but obviously he and Kyrgios are the most promising of the lot.. And Pouille I'd like to throw a bone to, but just can't quite believe as a possible Slam winner. I like Khachanov's game, but man - he's a crap mover. I'd throw in DelPo, too, as part of the "pack" except he's never going to get back into the Top 10 unless he starts hitting over his backhand.

Bottom line - upsets will obviously happen, but in the end if one of the big 4 doesn't win Wimbledon - I'm gonna be downright flabbergasted. With Djokovic's decline everybody thought these other guys would see the opening and go for it. Instead - it's been a throwback to the days before Djokovic's hot streak - Federer and Nadal. If you're these other, younger, players on the tour at what point do you say, "Why the hell can't I beat a 35, nearly 36 year-old who doesn't even play every week anymore?" and NOT find the answer, "Oh yeah...because he's Roger Federer!" to be perfectly acceptable reason for your failure to beat him? John McEnroe got one thing right - why aren't these guys madder that they can't break through against the top 4 guys? Note I am NOT including Stan The Headcase in this discussion...

I do just want to briefly say that, yes, you may be nearly alone in not being impressed by what Rafa did on clay this year (let alone what he has done across his career on clay.) Barcelona is a 500 sandwiched between 3 x MS 1000s. I allow that it's often been a "gimme" for Rafa. Sure, Roger skipped the season and Novak and Andy are far below par, but it doesn't make winning week in/week out a walk in the dirt, as it were. The guys around here like to speak of domination, but Nadal dominating clay for a season, and for so many seasons doesn't impress you? I'd say you're hard to please, Busted. B-) Also, I'm no defender of Stan, but you're perilously close to calling him a fluke. I still think that most folks who wanted to see Rafa stopped at RG this year would have picked Stan for that final.

I'd actually agree with you that it's a bit of a coin flip how you list Rafa/Novak/Andy after Roger for Wimby. I also agree with Dude, who says what most do, I think: If Rafa makes the 2nd week, you have to put him above the other 2, and much closer to Roger. Also agree that most anyone else is more likely to play spoiler than eventual champion, but I also agree with @El Dude on his notion that the Big 4, as a group, are less prohibitively favored than usual for the last several years at any Major. But they'd probably all have to get picked off early for someone else to walk through the door. So, even though I accused you of lacking imagination (sorry), I guess I'm rather in the same camp...about the only one I see running the gauntlet is Cilic, and I'm not so happy to say that.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Federer or Samprs at 22-25? One set only? Federer. And I don't even have to think too hard about it.I did go back and look up the stats though to check out exactly what their numbers were just so I could think about how they were playing at that stage of their careers. That would have been 1994-1997 for Pete -

AO - W, F, 3R, W
French - QF, 1R, SF, 3R
Wimbledon - W, W, QF, W
USO - 4R, W, W, 4R
Tour Finals - W, n/a, W, W

1994 - 77-12, 10 titles
1995 - 72-16, 5 titles
1996 - 65-11, 8 titles
1997 - 55-12, 8 titles


Federer turned 22 in August 2003, so I would put his 22-25 as 2004-2007 - possibly the 4 greatest consecutive years in the Open era -

AO - W, SF, W, W
FO - 3R, SF, F, F
Wimbledon - W, W, W, W
USO - W, W, W, W
Tour Finals - W, RU, W, W

2004 - 74-6, 11 titles
2005 - 81-5 - 11 titles
2006 - 92-5 - 12 titles
2007 - 68-9 - 8 titles

Plus - let's be honest here...Roger was just a helluva lot more fun to watch than Pete was and he had way more game than Pete did. Pete was pretty one-dimensional when it comes right down to it. By 2005-2006 I'd say Roger just had too much game for Pete - especially over 1 set. .

During their only encounter, Sampras was robbed of the 1st at set point in the tiebreaker..Roger serve was called in and it was clearly out..that raggedy cyclops machine blew the call.

 

[Haelfix]

One set only? Where and under what conditions? Pete would struggle against prime Federer and would have a matchup problem (he'd be much happier against Novak or Rafa on most surfaces). However you gotta like his chances on say carpet. It would likely be most neutral on fast grass.

One set is a toss up though, I mean almost any atp player can win a set off one of the top guys, much less one of the greatest players ever so I don't see the point of the exercise.

 

[El Dude]

During their only encounter, Sampras was robbed of the 1st at set point in the
tiebreaker..Roger serve was called in and it was clearly out..that raggedy cyclops machine blew the call.

LOL, really? Is this the latest attempt to diminish Roger? Anyhow, you can't say he was robbed if it was Roger's serve called in, because that implies Pete would have won the point otherwise. We don't know if he would.

Anyhow, as for the Pete-Roger comparison, I'd say...

On hard (any): Roger
On clay: Roger
On grass: Equal
On carpet: Pete

 

[Moxie]

LOL, really? Is this the latest attempt to diminish Roger? Anyhow, you can't say he was robbed if it was Roger's serve called in, because that implies Pete would have won the point otherwise. We don't know if he would.

Anyhow, as for the Pete-Roger comparison, I'd say...

On hard (any): Roger
On clay: Roger
On grass: Equal
On carpet: Pete

Definitely kicking it old school to go back to the Sampras-Federer debate. Reminds me of ol' MikeOne. Only it's AP stirring the pot. I'm in the Federer camp on this one, for sure. Pete's game bored me. Much more one-dimensional, though he was a tough guy, mentally. Give him carpet, if you like, but then ask yourself: One set v. Isner or Karlovic on carpet: who wins? Who cares? The techy bit is Pete v. Roger on grass, and they are equal on resume.

 

[DarthFed]

Remember,the critica, is for only one set
Not for one set ..at age 22, I would choose Pete..

I'd give Pete the small edge on the faster grass of his day but Roger would have a pretty sizable edge on today's grass. Roger would have the small edge on fast hards, and then a big edge everywhere else except carpet.

 

[the AntiPusher]

I'd give Pete the small edge on the faster grass of his day but Roger would have a pretty sizable edge on today's grass. Roger would have the small edge on fast hards, and then a big edge everywhere else except carpet.

Remember the caveat is just one set, 22 year old Pete vs 22.year old Roger on fast grass, who ya got

 

[the AntiPusher]

LOL, really? Is this the latest attempt to diminish Roger? Anyhow, you can't say he was robbed if it was Roger's serve called in, because that implies Pete would have won the point otherwise. We don't know if he would.

Anyhow, as for the Pete-Roger comparison, I'd say...

On hard (any): Roger
On clay: Roger
On grass: Equal
On carpet: Pete

Watch the match,Sampras unlike most player Never bitch about much, always kept his cool..
It ain't diminishing Roger but the truth..

 

[Moxie]

Watch the match,Sampras unlike most player Never bitch about much, always kept his cool..
It ain't diminishing Roger but the truth..

What are the chances you're not digging at Roger, mon vieux? Good discussion though: Roger v. Pete as we roll into Wimbledon.

 

[the AntiPusher]

What are the chances you're not digging at Roger, mon vieux? Good discussion though: Roger v. Pete as we roll into Wimbledon.

Really it's the other way, they have been digging at Pete's legacy for years.
Roger's fandom knows that there's some serious considerations that Pete was the greatest grass court player..

 

[Moxie]

Really it's the other way, they have been digging at Pete's legacy for years.
Roger's fandom knows that there's some serious considerations that Pete was the greatest grass court player..

I'm pretty sure the Pete people started it, as I have a long memory on these (various) boards, and Federer was still just a promising guy with a pony-tail when they started to take him down. But tell me how Pete's record on grass beats Roger's. I've never studied it up, and I know in the broad strokes they're very even.

 

[Shivashish Sarkar]

it wasn't meant to say that i make judgement by classes, rather to stress that Zverev has good defense regardless. i question your take also on his volleys, it is not great but is enough given his game, no different to several other top players.

What i really can confidently say, is you are wrong about completeness........Novak is seen widely as a complete player (one of the most complete), but there is no question his net game & overhead are nowhere nearing matching, in fact no more decent than Zverev's. Point is, he is proven to be 'complete' (other players mentioned this too), as there isn't a simple straightforward that you can consistently exploit to break him down.

I didn't put Novak's name in that list of players with really reliable net skills. Novak gets them wrong at times. But due to supreme fitness and reflex and still better hands than Zverev (maybe, not sure, this is debatable of course), he just isn't poor at the net. I would like to split hairs here and consider Novak complete enough. Zverev due to his body type and his hands, is still poorer at the net IMHO. That's what I am pointing to. We are having a nice debate, mate. Haha.

 

[Shivashish Sarkar]

it wasn't meant to say that i make judgement by classes, rather to stress that Zverev has good defense regardless. i question your take also on his volleys, it is not great but is enough given his game, no different to several other top players.

What i really can confidently say, is you are wrong about completeness........Novak is seen widely as a complete player (one of the most complete), but there is no question his net game & overhead are nowhere nearing matching, in fact no more decent than Zverev's. Point is, he is proven to be 'complete' (other players mentioned this too), as there isn't a simple straightforward that you can consistently exploit to break him down.

See, I don't want to over-criticise Zverev or anything. For me personally, his game still isn't very awe-inspiring. That is only my opinion.

 

[the AntiPusher]

I'm pretty sure the Pete people started it, as I have a long memory on these (various) boards, and Federer was still just a promising guy with a pony-tail when they started to take him down. But tell me how Pete's record on grass beats Roger's. I've never studied it up, and I know in the broad strokes they're very even.

Pete's record in finals was 7-0 , he remained undefeated even when he wasn't even 80% healthy. I think the year he faced Rafter in the finals Pete was experiencing very painful shin splits which prevented him from being able to practice between matches for the majority of the forthnight..Remarkably gutsy and to defeat a loaded field of grass court specialist including Rafter was amazing.
Give me some time to research the stats

 

[DarthFed]

Fed has more titles and more Wimbledon finals. Based on that there is an argument that he is the greatest grass court player ever. The argument against him is that Pete was a lot better in the finals than Roger has been. Let's hope Fed makes this a moot point and wins #8 as he should've done long ago

 

[Shivashish Sarkar]

Talking about Wimbledon 2001, this was 2 years before Roger's game matured enough for a slam win. Pete was close to thirty years. That age means post-peak. I don't have the stats for that match but from the highlights it looks like Pete wasn't very poor. Roger's game wasn't fully developed yet and that balanced Pete's dip in form due to age I thought. Does the match hold any significance?

 

[the AntiPusher]

Talking about Wimbledon 2001, this was 2 years before Roger's game matured enough for a slam win. Pete was close to thirty years. That age means post-peak. I don't have the stats for that match but from the highlights it looks like Pete wasn't very poor. Roger's game wasn't fully developed yet and that balanced Pete's dip in form due to age I thought. Does the match hold any significance?

Yes it holds significance, it has been looked upon as the changing of the guard although Roger didn't win the title . He was considered by many tennis experts to have a great opportunity to defeat Pete. Finally this was one of Pete's last great run at Wimbledon. That's why I posed the question , Pete at his best at 22 and Fed at 22 when he won Wimbledon for the first time.(I think I am correct about that )

 

[atttomole]

It can be any age you want. Does it really matter if its 20, 21, 22 or 24? I remember Roger won his first Wimbledon when he was 21 in 2003, and Petros won his first Wimbledon when he was 21 in 1993. Unlike Roger, Pete had already won the US Open when he won his first Wimbledon. I still think that their 2001 match can give us an idea of what could have been, even though we can not make definitive conclusions for obvious reasons. That match was played on the 90's grass, before the surface was changed in 2002.

 

[atttomole]

Fed has more titles and more Wimbledon finals. Based on that there is an argument that he is the greatest grass court player ever. The argument against him is that Pete was a lot better in the finals than Roger has been. Let's hope Fed makes this a moot point and wins #8 as he should've done long ago

Pete can't be better if they both won 7 finals. However, I agree that the issue will be settled if Roger wins number 8, even though I still give Roger a slight edge for the 3 extra finals and a semifinal.