Early Wimbledon Talk

[Carol]

You might want to read my post again in order not to miss the point by a mile.

I've read it and I'm thinking the same way. If someone is saying (it sounds more a wish than anything else) that Raonic and Dimitrov have more probabilities to win Wimbledon than Nadal it's not even worth to respond such silly thought

 

[britbox]

I'm just talking their best slams, sorry for not making that more clear.

Nadal 10-0 at RG
Borg 6-0 at RG
Sampras 7-0 at Wimbledon
Djokovic 6-0 at Australia

And definitely 1 win is better than 0 even if Sampras had made 20 finals.

I don't buy the finals argument. Let's say Federer lost in the semi-finals instead of the final of the three tournaments you mentioned... then he'd be 7-0 at Wimbledon. Using your logic that would propel him above Borg, Djokovic and tie him with Sampras.... for losing a tournament earlier. I'm not buying the claim that losing in a tournament earlier makes you greater.

 

[Shivashish Sarkar]

I don't buy the finals argument. Let's say Federer lost in the semi-finals instead of the final of the three tournaments you mentioned... then he'd be 7-0 at Wimbledon. Using your logic that would propel him above Borg, Djokovic and tie him with Sampras.... for losing a tournament earlier. I'm not buying the claim that losing in a tournament earlier makes you greater.

Fed has played longer than those players. So maybe we should cut him some slack for not winning his last two Wimbledon finals. Where Roger's record was really spolied is the Rafa defeat at Wimbly 2008 because Sampras hadn't lost a Wimbledon final at that age (because he never lost one). Becoming 6-1 before turning 27 was a record inferior to Sampras. But again Federer had a younger capable rival that Sampras just didn't have. Moreover, Roger should be given the kudos for winning a Wimbly title at 30 (almost 31). Sampras didn't achieve this. Federer is ahead of Sampras due to his 3 extra finals. And I am looking at this only because they have the same number of titles in the first place. Looking at numbers, Federer is ahead.

 

[DarthFed]

I don't buy the finals argument. Let's say Federer lost in the semi-finals instead of the final of the three tournaments you mentioned... then he'd be 7-0 at Wimbledon. Using your logic that would propel him above Borg, Djokovic and tie him with Sampras.... for losing a tournament earlier. I'm not buying the claim that losing in a tournament earlier makes you greater.

At Wimbledon he is above Borg at RG and Djoker at AO as it is 7-6 in titles. As for the finals argument it is a difference in opinion and it is also about hindsight.

In hindsight I'd rather Fed had lost in the semis those years for multiple reasons: better H2H with biggest rivals, and going forward he'd still have a sense of invincibility if he reached another final. Even leaving aside those things you know what I think, the guy who loses the final is barely any greater than the guys losing well before that. Only the winner matters in a 1-on-1 sport unless money is an issue.

 

[britbox]

At Wimbledon he is above Borg at RG and Djoker at AO as it is 7-6 in titles. As for the finals argument it is a difference in opinion and it is also about hindsight.

In hindsight I'd rather Fed had lost in the semis those years for multiple reasons: better H2H with biggest rivals, and going forward he'd still have a sense of invincibility if he reached another final. Even leaving aside those things you know what I think, the guy who loses the final is barely any greater than the guys losing well before that. Only the winner matters in a 1-on-1 sport unless money is an issue.

Money is an issue - and ranking points.

 

[brokenshoelace]

This losing in the finals vs. losing before argument actually makes me think about another, much lesser talked about stat of Nadal at the FO: Yes. he's won it 10 times. Yes, he's 10-0 in the finals (while never going to a fifth set), but he's also 10-0 in semi finals. This essentially means that it's a foregone conclusion as soon as he's in the semis. Given that he's only lost twice at RG, there's not even a room for the losing in the finals vs. losing earlier, because he hasn't done the former, and barely did the latter.

 

[rafanoy1992]

This losing in the finals vs. losing before argument actually makes me think about another, much lesser talked about stat of Nadal at the FO: Yes. he's won it 10 times. Yes, he's 10-0 in the finals (while never going to a fifth set), but he's also 10-0 in semi finals. This essentially means that it's a foregone conclusion as soon as he's in the semis. Given that he's only lost twice at RG, there's not even a room for the losing in the finals vs. losing earlier, because he hasn't done the former, and barely did the latter.

I don't know if this is relevant, but also Nadal is 22-3 (88%) in Grand Slam semifinals winning his last 14 Grand Slam semifinals appearances.

Basically, once Nadal reaches the semifinals, he is close to winning the whole tournament.

 

[DarthFed]

Money is an issue - and ranking points.

Ranking points are important sure but you seriously think these legends are thinking to themselves "at least I got an extra couple hundred thousand for getting to the final" as they are receiving their dinner plates for being the runner-up?

 

[britbox]

Ranking points are important sure but you seriously think these legends are thinking to themselves "at least I got an extra couple hundred thousand for getting to the final" as they are receiving their dinner plates for being the runner-up?

No, but I don't see the logic in how losing earlier is somehow better for a legacy.

 

[El Dude]

Yeah, I already addressed this but Darth kind of skipped over it.

But to re-state: I think the best comparison is Roger's 7-3 record in Wimbledon finals vs. Pete's 7-0. Two of Roger's final losses were at ages (32 and 33, in 2014 and 2015 respectively) that Pete was retired from the sport. Consider also that the last Wimbledon final Pete appeared in was 2000, at age 28. So to penalize Roger for losing in finals at age 32 and 33, when he was 4-5 years older than Pete was during his last final, doesn't really make sense.

Add in his final loss to Rafa in 2008, and you can swap that out for Pete's QF loss to Richard Krajicek in 1996. Is losing to a surging Rafa in a final worse than losing to a much lesser player in a quarterfinal?

Another variant of this argument is looking at Ivan Lendl, with his 8-11 Slam final record. Lendl is the only 6+ Slam winner of the Open Era with a losing record in Slam finals. But consider two things:

1) Lendl appeared in 19 Slam finals. The only players in the Open Era to appear in more are Roger (28), Rafa (22), and Novak (21).

2) Lendl's prime years overlapped three separate generations of greats: Connors/Borg/McEnroe/Vilas in the late 70s to mid-80s; Wilander/Edberg/Becker in the mid-80s to early 90s, and Sampras/Agassi/Courier in the early 90s. I haven't done an in-depth study, but I'm pretty sure that of any great player in the Open Era, Lendl's prime years had the most "competitive density" - that is, he played in the hardest context of any great player of the Open Era.

I know we're not talking about Lendl, but I think it illustrates the point: that when we talk about greatness, we can't only look to the win column. We have to look at the other results as well. Another example of this is comparing Andy Murray and Stan Wawrinka. Andy is 3-8 in Slam finals, by far the worst percentage of any multi-Slam winner, while Stan is 3-1. How do we compare the two? Not to mention Andy's far superior results in other tournaments - 20 big titles vs. Stan's 4, etc.

All of these are variants on the theme. Looking only at Slam wins is just the surface and only tells us so much about how good a player is, historically speaking.

 

[DarthFed]

To make it more clear I'm not really penalizing Roger especially for the last two even though he definitely was way sub par in 2015 even for his standards as a 34 year old. I'm just stating the opinion that he hasn't often brought his best on the final Sunday of Wimbledon for whatever reason. Not just a couple of the losses but even a couple wins.

As for whether 7-0 is "greater" than 7-3 there are just different ways of looking at it. I do agree that it isn't right to "punish" Fed for the last two when Sampras wasn't even relevant at Wimbledon after 2000 just before turning 29. But certainly Wimbledon 08 is a different story and in general it's fair to say Pete found his best game in the final a lot more consistently than Roger.

I think there is an extra bit of greatness to be earned when someone is so ridiculously amazing on the biggest stage. I know it's a different sport but more than anything that's how Jordan stands out (6-0 in finals and never even pushed to the limit) and even if LeBron somehow got to 6 there would be many saying MJ was still greater even though LeBron is going to end up with 10+ finals and way greater longevity. Same with Montana vs. Brady until this year. Brady had gotten to more SB's and with the current rules he has the better all around stats but Montana's performance in SB's dwarves Tom's.

I still stand by the thought that in hindsight the semi losses would be better than finals but a big part of that is who he lost to. It'd have been better H2H, especially if he didn't let Nadal clown him in 2008.

 

[Moxie]

To make it more clear I'm not really penalizing Roger especially for the last two even though he definitely was way sub par in 2015 even for his standards as a 34 year old. I'm just stating the opinion that he hasn't often brought his best on the final Sunday of Wimbledon for whatever reason. Not just a couple of the losses but even a couple wins.

As for whether 7-0 is "greater" than 7-3 there are just different ways of looking at it. I do agree that it isn't right to "punish" Fed for the last two when Sampras wasn't even relevant at Wimbledon after 2000 just before turning 29. But certainly Wimbledon 08 is a different story and in general it's fair to say Pete found his best game in the final a lot more consistently than Roger.

I think there is an extra bit of greatness to be earned when someone is so ridiculously amazing on the biggest stage. I know it's a different sport but more than anything that's how Jordan stands out (6-0 in finals and never even pushed to the limit) and even if LeBron somehow got to 6 there would be many saying MJ was still greater even though LeBron is going to end up with 10+ finals and way greater longevity. Same with Montana vs. Brady until this year. Brady had gotten to more SB's and with the current rules he has the better all around stats but Montana's performance in SB's dwarves Tom's.

I still stand by the thought that in hindsight the semi losses would be better than finals but a big part of that is who he lost to. It'd have been better H2H, especially if he didn't let Nadal clown him in 2008.

It seems to keep coming down to how much you resent him losing to Nadal in '08. You've basically forgiven him 2 later-career losses to Djokovic. Everyone but you seems to agree that doing better, as opposed to doing less-well in a tournament, is generally better for the legacy. (And better for keeping one's ranking in the shorter term, as britbox mentioned, re: points.) You're looking for a brilliant resume to be just that hair better. Perhaps you're feeling techy because of "La Décima," (1st bolded comment above.) Yes, things like that are fodder for the endless Fedal conversation to go on forever. As to the 2nd bolded: I thought you lot didn't put much stake in the H2Hs. And just to be clear, Nadal didn't "clown" Federer in the 2008 Wimbledon final. He beat him after a long, hard-fought match. Where he clowned him was in the '08 RG final. (Sorry, but you walked into that.)

 

[El Dude]

@DarthFed, I think we are edging closer to agreement, although I do share Moxie's view that a lot of this is being colored by your resentment about the 2008 Wimbledon. I mean, I get it: that was the benchmark when Rafa passed Roger as the top player in the sport, and on Roger's home turf (although it is worth mentioning that after that match, Roger won two more Wimbledons and Rafa one).

If you compare Pete through 2010 to Roger through 2012, they have very similar results at Wimbledon. The main difference is context: Pete never had a Rafa or Novak to contend with. But after those years, Roger's performance was better even if he didn't win an 8th (yet). But I don't think anyone would be looking at Pete's Wimbledon record as somehow tarnished if he had, say, played on and lost in the final to Roger in 2003 and 2004. If anything, people would have commented on how amazing that the old greats Agassi and Sampras are hanging with the new studs.

I tend to view tennis greatness as cumulative. For instance, Mats Wilander's career after his great 1988 season did not detract from what he did before, it just didn't add anything. Similarly with Hewitt's last decade. They stopped accumulating "greatness credentials" but didn't subtract anything from their accomplishments. Of course there is always the shadowy mystique of Borg to look back - how he retired at his peak (or; I think, just as he was starting to decline, or at least be surpassed) so there is this allure about his untarnished greatness. It would be like if Roger retired after 2008, winning the USO and then calling it quits. Roger would have ended with a 13-4 record in Slam finals, without the "tarnish" of his 5-6 record from 2009 on. But he wouldn't have separated himself from every Open Era player like he did.

p.s. I realize that Roger's career through 2007, with a 12-2 Slam finals record, is even more "untarnished" but I use 2008 because it was the year the Rafa surpassed him, just as 1981 was the year Mac surpassed Borg.

 

[Moxie]

I tend to view tennis greatness as cumulative. For instance, Mats Wilander's career after his great 1988 season did not detract from what he did before, it just didn't add anything. Similarly with Hewitt's last decade. They stopped accumulating "greatness credentials" but didn't subtract anything from their accomplishments. Of course there is always the shadowy mystique of Borg to look back - how he retired at his peak (or; I think, just as he was starting to decline, or at least be surpassed) so there is this allure about his untarnished greatness. It would be like if Roger retired after 2008, winning the USO and then calling it quits. Roger would have ended with a 13-4 record in Slam finals, without the "tarnish" of his 5-6 record from 2009 on. But he wouldn't have separated himself from every Open Era player like he did.

p.s. I realize that Roger's career through 2007, with a 12-2 Slam finals record, is even more "untarnished" but I use 2008 because it was the year the Rafa surpassed him, just as 1981 was the year Mac surpassed Borg.

[COLOR=#000000]You make a great point about greatness being cumulative, and that not adding to greatness doesn't lessen accomplishments. I also agree with the "shadowy mystique" of Borg, who quit, leaving loads of "what ifs," and also Pete, who walked away on a big win. But is that better than continuing on, and winning more, even if you'll also lose more? I'm with you, Dude. As well with your earlier comparisons to Lendl. Nobody thinks less of Lendl because he lost so many finals against rough competition. It's what he won.

PS: You might want to adjust your dates in the 2nd paragraph. ;)[/COLOR]

 

[DarthFed]

It seems to keep coming down to how much you resent him losing to Nadal in '08. You've basically forgiven him 2 later-career losses to Djokovic. Everyone but you seems to agree that doing better, as opposed to doing less-well in a tournament, is generally better for the legacy. (And better for keeping one's ranking in the shorter term, as britbox mentioned, re: points.) You're looking for a brilliant resume to be just that hair better. Perhaps you're feeling techy because of "La Décima," (1st bolded comment above.) Yes, things like that are fodder for the endless Fedal conversation to go on forever. As to the 2nd bolded: I thought you lot didn't put much stake in the H2Hs. And just to be clear, Nadal didn't "clown" Federer in the 2008 Wimbledon final. He beat him after a long, hard-fought match. Where he clowned him was in the '08 RG final. (Sorry, but you walked into that.)

Get over yourself, it's pretty obvious there is a difference in losing finals at age 33 and 34 vs. 27. And you have me mistaken for someone else, H2H is definitely important but if we are talking about comparing players it belongs in the "tiebreak" category IMO.

We will agree to disagree about clowning at Wimbledon. It was weak on paper and I already know you'll disagree

 

[Moxie]

Get over yourself, it's pretty obvious there is a difference in losing finals at age 33 and 34 vs. 27. And you have me mistaken for someone else, H2H is definitely important but if we are talking about comparing players it belongs in the "tiebreak" category IMO.

We will agree to disagree about clowning at Wimbledon. It was weak on paper and I already know you'll disagree

I think the one who needs to get over himself is you. Even Dude said you're putting too much resentment into that '08 loss. I've just been addressing points, as has everyone else. Yes, probably H2Hs and domination over a particular tournament are in the tiebreak realm as to GOAT.

However, you say that Roger was weak on paper in that match, but the stats don't bear that out. It's not me disagreeing with you. It's the "paper":

Total points won:
Nadal: 209
Federer: 204

Winning % on first serve:
Nadal: 69%
Federer: 73%

Winning % on second serve:
Nadal: 59%
Federer: 57%

Receiving points won:
Nadal: 64 of 195 = 33%
Federer: 73 of 218 = 33%

Break point conversions:

Nadal: 4 of 13 = 31%
Federer: 1 of 13 = 8%

Net approaches:

Nadal: 22 of 31 = 71%
Federer: 42 of 75 = 56%

I know you'll complain about the last 2 stats, and you have about the BP conversions not done by Fed, but Rafa is one of the greatest at saving BPs and also one of the greatest at the passing shot.

So, even on "paper" it's a tight match, and where Rafa prevailed makes sense, especially at the time.

 

[DarthFed]

I said the loss was weak on paper but yes there are certain stats from Roger that match that back it up. 1/13 on BP's and a horrid conversion rate at net are not normal even for that matchup. And that doesn't even get into set 2 where a 4-1 lead was choked into a 6-4 loss. It's hard for anyone to lose 5 straight games on grass, let alone Roger.

 

[Moxie]

I said the loss was weak on paper but yes there are certain stats from Roger that match that back it up. 1/13 on BP's and a horrid conversion rate at net are not normal even for that matchup. And that doesn't even get into set 2 where a 4-1 lead was choked into a 6-4 loss. It's hard for anyone to lose 5 straight games on grass, let alone Roger.

Unless he's playing Rafa. I'll leave you to your illusions and your grief, now.

 

[Carol]

:sleep::sleep::sleep::sleep::sleep::sleep::sleep:

 

[Moxie]

:sleep::sleep::sleep::sleep::sleep::sleep::sleep:

Some nerve, coming from you. :lulz2: