Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 80 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
281 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Fedfans say that Roger is the grass GOAT. He has 8 titles there but lost all 3 finals against Novak. Would Pete lost 3 finals there to the same guy? I find it high unlikely. What do you think?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
461 Posts
In this era, yes. He would have lost 3 slams to Novak.

In the 90s, no. Nole would never have won 5 Wimbledons.

So if you are talking about slow homogenised grass Nole wins against Sampras.

Fast 90s Grass Sampras wins.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
860 Posts
No chance, if we assume that the conditions were like they were in the 90s.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
281 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
In this era, yes. He would have lost 3 slams to Novak.

In the 90s, no. Nole would never have won 5 Wimbledons.

So if you are talking about slow homogenised grass Nole wins against Sampras.

Fast 90s Grass Sampras wins.
I don't see Pete losing those 3 WI finals against Novak, even today. Grass is still grass.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,469 Posts
Who knows. Federer lost his first final to Djokovic aged almost 33, while Sampras retired at 31, having lost to every man and his dog during his final season. Somehow I doubt his form would have improved as he continued to age...
 

·
justice for all
Joined
·
17,624 Posts
Not sure, but one thing I'm sure of is Sampras never reached past SF at RG during the much weaker clay era than today. So even though I used to be a big Pete fan I must concede Pete by definition is out of any GOAT debate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,546 Posts
Maybe.But certainly not from 40-15.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,927 Posts
Nobody can tell for sure how Sampras would have fared at his peak against Federer or Djokovic. But you have to consider that Federer was almost 33, 34, and 38 years old, respectively, when he lost Wimbledon finals to Djokovic. Sampras was just approaching 30 years, when he lost to 20 year old Federer in 2001, and one year later he lost to George Bastl and soon thereafter decided to call it a day. You can be pretty sure that he wouldn't have had the slightest chance against Federer (or Djokovic) at the age of 33, 34 or even 38.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,809 Posts
To be fair Federer was not in his best in those years but at least in 2014/2019 he should have won.
In 2015 Novak was too good.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
317 Posts
No, I don't think so. Wimby is all about the serve, and Pete had the best 1st & 2nd serve of any man or woman. Well, maybe Serena could make a claim for the moniker, but I know MTF doesn't like to compare men and women, which is fair.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
203 Posts
Sampras retired at 31. Federer lost 3 Wimbledon finals when he was 33, 34, and 38.
Had Sampras continued playing until 38 yo, he would not have lost 3 finals to the same guy (who is an ATG) like Roger, but instead he would have lost to 5-6 random guys in the first week (like what happened in his last two Wimbledon). Which one is worse?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
281 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Obviously the majority here never watched Pistol Pete play. And in 2015 final, fed played some of the best tennis i have ever seen him play and only won 1 set. And this age thing fedfan love to talk about, i started to hear in 2008, the age excuse after Rafa defeated him at WI and AO. Easy to talk about Pete now, but at his best i don't know if Fed could hang with him.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,171 Posts
In his mid to late thirties? No, he wouldn't because at age 38 he would probably waste his wild card and lose in the first round... again.

Ok that was maybe too harsh. Let's say Pete had continued playing after 2002 and taken tennis seriously. Does anyone think he wouldn't be losing to Federer every Wimbledon starting in 2003?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
281 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
In his mid to late thirties? No, he wouldn't because at age 38 he would probably waste his wild card and lose in the first round... again.

Ok that was maybe too harsh. Let's say Pete had continued playing after 2002 and taken tennis seriously. Does anyone think he wouldn't be losing to Federer every Wimbledon starting in 2003?
Sure, but you think that if he played is this era, he would retire at 32? Never. The big 3 would be around and winning a lot and he obviously would continue to challenge them. He retired because no one was ahead of him. But in the end, we will never know.
 

·
Registered User
Joined
·
30,365 Posts
Fedfans say that Roger is the grass GOAT. He has 8 titles there but lost all 3 finals against Novak. Would Pete lost 3 finals there to the same guy? I find it high unlikely. What do you think?
Sampras got scared and retired. He is a quitter. Why are you glorifying him?
 
1 - 20 of 80 Posts
Top