Nani Nana
Full Member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2009
- Messages
- 5,660
- Supports
- Whoever won the game
There is no argument that Djoker is a superior player to Sampras and Federer on clay and hard courts. Roughly similar on grass too.
Lendl was by nearly every metric the greatest player of the 1980s. But it ain't just about metrics.Borg was more 70s than 80s. Retired in 81.
80s was a bit of a weird era - quite a few different champions. Wilander and Lendl won 7 each - and Lendl was World number 1 for 238 weeks and made another 10 slam finals in the 80s.
Well obviously Federer could have lived with him because Federer beat him. But that was older Sampras. Peak Sampras on 90s grass probably beats all of the big 3 more often than not, I reckon.The question is how sampras would fare against the big 3.
On clay he'd be thrashed, obviously.
I think he'd win a fair number on grass and hard court. And on the kind of grass that was used back in the 90s, I reckon only federer could have lived with him.
Along the big three - I think FedererSampras, very closely followed by Borg.
Djokovic?Greatest athlete of all time is a more serious debate.
Yeah this thread may as well be closed. Barring some miraculous recovery and and an incredible 2024 and 2025 for Rafa, it's done.Greatest athlete of all time is a more serious debate.
Nadal and Federer are just there to make his case stronger.
A bit probably and they were close for long period to be fair.In truth I think biases towards Nadal and Federer have made this debate last longer than it should, which is fair enough.
Greatest athlete of all time is a more serious debate.
Nadal and Federer are just there to make his case stronger.
Thanks feck you didn't go deeper and saved me from rolling my eyes reading your take in every thread you've ever showed up.
Make a ridiculous statement, you get an appropriate response.Thanks feck you didn't go deeper and saved me from rolling my eyes reading your take in every thread you've ever showed up.
Please, keep it this simple.