Just going by the normal "peak" of tennis players his mono year should have been his best. Obviously it wasn't. That's all I was saying.
Greatest mens tennis player of all time
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
It's rather simplistic to consider just grand slam singles titles won, as many posters in this thread seem to. Consider also finals, semi-finals, matches won, weeks ranked as number 1, and other tournaments.
It is hard to compare the old with the new for at least 4 reasons:
1.The increased concentration on winning majors.
The Aussie open was for a long time only really contested by Aussies. Emerson won many of his 12 majors in a weakened field that way. Margaret Smith, then Court, won loads of titles there. Borg played it only once, when he was 17. McEnroe and Connors didn't play it much during their peak years. They also sometimes skipped the French.
2.The absence of pros until 1968.
The pros were better than the amateurs in the 50's and 60's. Their absence helped Emerson win many majors and reduced the number won by the likes of Hoad, Rosewall and Gonzales. With Laver there are arguments both ways: he would likely have won fewer up to 1962 and more from 1963 through the 1968 French.
3.The change in the nature of the playing surfaces.
They have changed a lot over the years. There was a time when 3 of the 4 slams were played on grass, now it is 1. Even at Wimbledon the courts seem slower than they used to be. That and the changes to rackets have helped baseline players gain the ascendancy.
4.Changes in rackets.
The old players obviously wouldn't stand a chance with their wooden rackets and would have to adapt their game to the new rackets.
And maybe consider doubles performances if you are looking for the best tennis player rather just than the best singles player. Many top players over all generations did not play much doubles, but a few did very successfully, notably McEnroe, Navratilova and King (I know the thread title is about men).
I think Nadal's game is a bit overrated on here. It hasn't anything that Borg's didn't except the advantage of the modern racket. Borg would be better on any surface other than clay because his far superior serve would make the difference. He had comparable speed and stamina and match playing abilities. Like Nadal he could and would play from the baseline all day if necessary. He won 6 slams on the slowest surface and 5 consecutively on the fastest, and in those days Wimbledon was usually faster than it is nowadays, all before he turned 25. He was competing against a bunch of very good players, including McEnroe and Connors. Borg wasn't in the game as long but to me he was overall a better player while he was competing. IMO Djokovic is also a better all court player than Nadal, and maybe will regain his dominance.
It is hard to compare the old with the new for at least 4 reasons:
1.The increased concentration on winning majors.
The Aussie open was for a long time only really contested by Aussies. Emerson won many of his 12 majors in a weakened field that way. Margaret Smith, then Court, won loads of titles there. Borg played it only once, when he was 17. McEnroe and Connors didn't play it much during their peak years. They also sometimes skipped the French.
2.The absence of pros until 1968.
The pros were better than the amateurs in the 50's and 60's. Their absence helped Emerson win many majors and reduced the number won by the likes of Hoad, Rosewall and Gonzales. With Laver there are arguments both ways: he would likely have won fewer up to 1962 and more from 1963 through the 1968 French.
3.The change in the nature of the playing surfaces.
They have changed a lot over the years. There was a time when 3 of the 4 slams were played on grass, now it is 1. Even at Wimbledon the courts seem slower than they used to be. That and the changes to rackets have helped baseline players gain the ascendancy.
4.Changes in rackets.
The old players obviously wouldn't stand a chance with their wooden rackets and would have to adapt their game to the new rackets.
And maybe consider doubles performances if you are looking for the best tennis player rather just than the best singles player. Many top players over all generations did not play much doubles, but a few did very successfully, notably McEnroe, Navratilova and King (I know the thread title is about men).
I think Nadal's game is a bit overrated on here. It hasn't anything that Borg's didn't except the advantage of the modern racket. Borg would be better on any surface other than clay because his far superior serve would make the difference. He had comparable speed and stamina and match playing abilities. Like Nadal he could and would play from the baseline all day if necessary. He won 6 slams on the slowest surface and 5 consecutively on the fastest, and in those days Wimbledon was usually faster than it is nowadays, all before he turned 25. He was competing against a bunch of very good players, including McEnroe and Connors. Borg wasn't in the game as long but to me he was overall a better player while he was competing. IMO Djokovic is also a better all court player than Nadal, and maybe will regain his dominance.
Yes statistically he had a GOAT season or two in 2004-07 span. Those who have followed can imagine that without exact stats as he never seemed to lose but then look at the opponents. In 2006 link you posted, just look at those names. Even if Nadal, Djokovic, Murray might be there, they were still 19-20 yr old. Yes Nadal won French but apart from that his game was developing on other surfaces. Wawrinka too is a late bloomer and was hardly worth a mention back then. His main competitors were Roddick, Hewitt and Safin but for very reasons nobody could challenge regularly, if you compare it with how matches go among current big 4 and 2-3 others.
The central argument is not that Federer had superlative seasons or not, it is that, was it at such a high level that he would have dispatched Djokovic almost everytime and Nadal on other surfaces than clay. It is hypothetical scenario but given how these guys have played against him once they had seasons under belt, points that it won't have been straightforward.
Ideally a 3 year or so gap at max between Federer and Djokovic-Nadal-Murray would have been great.
Yes. I said as much that ifs don't count for much. Regarding opponents, Soderling had beaten Nadal so that was good achievement but we can't put Gonzalez as quality opposition. It is relative. Not that Roddick was a bad player as well but there was huge difference between him and Fed. Compared to that, the quality on circuit during peak of Nadal or Djokovic was lot better. Again, though just ifs and buts. Not Federer's fault he had relatively easy field for few years. He wasn't just marginally better, he was head and shoulders above and had the play to show he is among all time best.
For me, there has been no favorite. I either decide before match who I want to win if match is between big 4 or just enjoy without bothering about result. I felt physically sick when Nadal beat Fed in 2008 Wimbledon. I was in Singapore for company work, my hotel room didn't have channel showing the match and it was too late at night anyway. Getting up and checking result first thing in morning had depressed me. It was specific to Wimbledon though and I didn't want Fed to lose there back then. Then when new guys came and became awesome, I focused more on enjoying Tennis rather than rooting for one whole time. Only favorite I had, was before these guys...Agassi
It was not that difficult really at that point considering how good he was and how, a young Nadal apart, there was absolutely no competition.
The way Federer fans try and make his "peak" earlier and earlier to discredit Nadal and Djokovic is amusing. Yeah who cares if Nadal took him to 5 in 07 at Wimbledon and won the 08 Final because Federer was over the hill at that point. It's a nothing achievement for Rafa.
In support of Federer he's had to stay winning for longer. Take the three years rule in football and apply it Federer.. that hunger that drove him to those miraculous three years that aggression he'd have had because it was new to him and then we're demanding he stays as hungry for the next 5 years after it to cope with Nadal and Djokovics peak. Djokovic is struggling for motivation right now and yet Fed had a number of those type of years.
Seems abit unfair to me so we do need to take that into account and not just see it as a ploy by Federer fans.
Seems abit unfair to me so we do need to take that into account and not just see it as a ploy by Federer fans.
It's not unusual for sportsmen to be extremely dominant for a few years in an otherwise long and fruitful career, even the greatest. Heck, Messi is a machine but football fans would widely regard 09-11 as his best, unplayable period.
Disregardin pre 1965 or so:
1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Borg
4. Sampras
5. Djokovic
My subjective top 2, just going by how much I enjoye(d) watching them play:
1. Federer
2. Santoro
1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Borg
4. Sampras
5. Djokovic
My subjective top 2, just going by how much I enjoye(d) watching them play:
1. Federer
2. Santoro
I'm not sure to be honest if he was able to sustain that level for that many years to peak at 27/28. Everyone peak at a different time and IMO he was at his physical best at that time.
Well let's see in 2005 for example the year end was:
Federer
Nadal
Roddick
Hewitt
Davydenko
Nalbandian
Agassi
Coria
Ljubicic
Gaudio
All but Davy, Nalbandian, Coria and Ljubicic are slam winners there. All but Ljubicic are multiple MS winners as well(Ljubicic has 1).
IN 2010 - Nadals best year, the top ten was:
Nadal
Federer
Djokovic
Murray
Soderling
Ferrer
Roddick
Verdasco
Youzhny
Djokovic at the time winner of 1 slam, Murray - none, Soderling - none, Ferrer - none, Roddick in his late days, Verdasco and Youznhy inferior.
Soderling, Ferrer, Verdasco, Youzhny - 2 MS between them.
Fast forward to 2016 YE - Murray, Djokovic, Wawrinka, Raonic, Nishikori, Monfils, Cilic, Nadal, Thiem...
I can't see any of those top ten players to be more competitive than the one in 2005 or 2004 or 2006 etc.
On the other hand if we take clay into consideration where Nadal amassed his slam titles, what was the competition for him? Federer who is not a clay courter and was beaten at the time by bad hip Kuerten in three in 2004, then Nalbandian had him on the ropes in 2006 leading 6-3 3-0 before getting injured?
Or Soderling with his 2 titles on clay? Ferrer who was 1-4 against Coria on clay and won 1 set in their last four meetings?
The majority of Federer's slams are on hard courts where the competition is the best during the last 15 years. Grass and clay court pool is admittedly worse than it was 25 years ago for example.
"One Shot Pony" Roddick leads Djokovic in their H2H... just sayin'.
Not to mention taking Murray out in Wimbey semis in 09
Btw.: Safin vs. a 29year old Sampras at the US Open:
How anyone can say he should be filed under "no competition" is beyond me
How anyone can say he should be filed under "no competition" is beyond me
Which one of them, Sampras or Safin? Sampras competed with a prime Agassi for most of his career, doubt anyone would call that 'no competition'.
Safin.
Tbf, he was a wasted talent but when he turned it on he was magnificent. Don't think I've ever felt less disappointed in a Fed loss than the 05 AO semi (incidentally the only time he beat Fed in a GS).
Yeah, he was an enormous talent and could have been a great but in the end he didn't accomplish nearly enough to even be included in the discussion.
That match was awesome, though. All out attack from both for 5 sets.
Yeap, hence it's hard to begrudge the winner. Nadal, otoh, won me over somewhat gradually because of his efforts and humility but I wasn't and am not a huge fan of his play style.
ffs 
Unbelievable that people call Davydenko, Ljubicic, Coria and Nalbandian as better bunch than that in any of last 8-9 years! Crazy. It is OK, you can be Fed fan and argue he is greatest but at least put sensible arguments. In same post, putting 35 year old Agassi as a 'top 10, multiple slam' winner player to big up Federer but call 28 year old Andy Roddick in 2010 'in his last days'
Gaudio, a guy who didn't get past 3rd round in 31 attempts apart from 1 slam win I guess is better player than 0 slam winner but 16 times QF or more in slam, Ferrer? We can actually go player by player but it will be too much of time waste for something obvious provided people watched them all. It can be proved with data as well. Just look for consistency in slams, ATP titles, overall career (not just picking and choosing which suits) and performances across surfaces.
Federer undoubtedly had a far easier field in his 'peak years.' Those peak years as I have said earlier have been defined conveniently for time when there was no one comparable challenging. As soon as the challengers arrived, suddenly he became past peak. No he didn't. He took long to adjust and come up with a counter to likes of Djokovic and Nadal. Still 18 are 18 titles and Federer has argument to be greatest for now but the quality of opposition is not one of the argument in his favour.
Unbelievable that people call Davydenko, Ljubicic, Coria and Nalbandian as better bunch than that in any of last 8-9 years! Crazy. It is OK, you can be Fed fan and argue he is greatest but at least put sensible arguments. In same post, putting 35 year old Agassi as a 'top 10, multiple slam' winner player to big up Federer but call 28 year old Andy Roddick in 2010 'in his last days' Gaudio, a guy who didn't get past 3rd round in 31 attempts apart from 1 slam win I guess is better player than 0 slam winner but 16 times QF or more in slam, Ferrer? We can actually go player by player but it will be too much of time waste for something obvious provided people watched them all. It can be proved with data as well. Just look for consistency in slams, ATP titles, overall career (not just picking and choosing which suits) and performances across surfaces.
Federer undoubtedly had a far easier field in his 'peak years.' Those peak years as I have said earlier have been defined conveniently for time when there was no one comparable challenging. As soon as the challengers arrived, suddenly he became past peak. No he didn't. He took long to adjust and come up with a counter to likes of Djokovic and Nadal. Still 18 are 18 titles and Federer has argument to be greatest for now but the quality of opposition is not one of the argument in his favour.
Greatest is Federer
Best are Djokovic (1a) and Nadal (1b)
Best are Djokovic (1a) and Nadal (1b)
Hard Court and Grass Court players have it a lot easier than Clay courters as the adjustment required for 3 of the slams is minimal relatively speaking. So it's utterly silly to not take into account the RG titles. Not only is Nadal indisputably the greatest clay courter of all time, he's taken on two of the greatest players on hard courts and grass and beaten them at their own slams. Federer never did that. Djokovic only managed it after Nadal was past it and crippled with injuries. And he did that with all of Murray, Djokovic and Federer around him. Which is why the whole 17-14 or 18-14 now comparison ignoring everything else is silly.
Roddick retired in 2012. His prime was way earlier in 03-05 where he was top three in the world. In 2010 he finished in his lowest ranking in 8 years and in the next fell off the top 10, whereas he was #39 in 2012. Its fair to say he was past his prime at the time.ffs
Gaudio, a guy who didn't get past 3rd round in 31 attempts apart from 1 slam win I guess is better player than 0 slam winner but 16 times QF or more in slam, Ferrer? We can actually go player by player but it will be too much of time waste for something obvious provided people watched them all. It can be proved with data as well. Just look for consistency in slams, ATP titles, overall career (not just picking and choosing which suits) and performances across surfaces.
Federer undoubtedly had a far easier field in his 'peak years.' Those peak years as I have said earlier have been defined conveniently for time when there was no one comparable challenging. As soon as the challengers arrived, suddenly he became past peak. No he didn't. He took long to adjust and come up with a counter to likes of Djokovic and Nadal. Still 18 are 18 titles and Federer has argument to be greatest for now but the quality of opposition is not one of the argument in his favour.
Agassi career is funny one as he took some time off during the 90's and was fairly inconsistent due to off court struggles. He won the majority of his slams aged 29-33 . For example in 2003 he won 1 slam, made it to 1 SF, 1 QF and 1 4th round, with a w/l % at 82. That's higher than any accomplishment he had in the 90's bar 95' and 99'. His game also was not about movement and pace(like Roddick), which let him be more successful in his later years rather than in his youth. Same can be said for Wawrinka for example.
Coria is more comparable to Ferrer not Gaudio(being more consistent and generally better player). Coria and Nadal played 4 times on clay. In the first meeting Coria straight setted a young off his peak Nadal. Then closer to his peak in 05 and 06 he bagelled Nadal on clay in MC and took him to 5 and tie break in the 5th in Rome.
Ferrer in 19 meetings with Nadal on clay won 8 sets and Nadal bagelled him 4 times and 6 times gave him breadsticks.
Nalbandian gave Nadal 7 games in 4 sets in 07 when he straight setted him in two masters in a row(beat Federer and Djokovic too).
Gaudio at least won a slam and won 8 clay titles(with 8 finals). Who apart from Ferrer, Nadal and Djokovic and Murray have done more on clay?
Davydenko won 21 titles, has winning h2h with Nadal, beaten all of Federer, Djokovic and Murray, 3 MS titles, 1 TMC with 1 final.
A guy like Murray wins masters and makes it to finals on clay, which is by far his weakest surface.
No one argues about Nadal and Djokovic have to deal with Federer and each other(we can add Murray too), but the rest of the field IMO is below the level of 10 years ago. I can't see Wawrinka for example capturing 3 slams during Federer's reign.
During the end of the 90's and early 00's the clay field was much deeper - you had Kuerten, Ferrero, Coria, Agassi, Moya, Medvedev, Corretja, Costa, even Gaudio. During Nadal's peak you had Nadal, Ferrer and the top players whose worst surface is clay.
I know all about Agassi's game and career, he was my favorite but he retired in 2006. So him being in top 10 at 2005 year end has not much value when comparing with other player's prime.
Coria only won once in 4 meetings with Nadal, when Nadal was 16-17 years old. Is that an achievement? Or winning a set 6-0 but ultimately losing it is? Are the bar so low for 2005 top 10? Also why Coria and Ferrer's record vs Nadal on clay only matter if we are comparing players? Ferrer beat Nadal few times on hard court too. Coria only ever once in his career beat a top 10 player on hard court. A player with 4-5 QF or better record in slams vs another with 16. Hardly a comparison. If it is, Ferrer is far too much ahead.
Lots of players in history have won odd slam. A player who can't get past 3rd round ever otherwise is being put up in argument. You are weakening your argument with such points, nothing else. If anything, Gaudio still winning a slam once and not getting past 3rd round otherwise ever just shows how poor field it was.
The success of Stan and Murray is admirable because in the toughest era ever they have won multiple slams and on different surfaces. It is not 90s or early 2000 when a random player would win slam, then go out in 1st round in next or be generally awful on surface other than preferred one.
Many of the clay court specialist from 90s were shit on other surfaces. On other hand, current top players whose worst surface is clay put a consistent performance every year. These players with worst surface as clay have been miles better than one court specialists.
Last edited:
I don't disagree with any off this. I'd say the importance of weighing majors increases as Tennis moved into the open era and the ability to actually travel to and compete in all four majors increased. A vast majority of GOAT lists are of players who competed anytime from the 60s to the present and rarely features the likes of Tilden.
The slam numbers obviously get skewed prior to 1968 - the Aussie was won almost exclusively by Aussies pre-68 and has been more or less dominated by foreign players after. No Aussie men's player has won the Aussie since 1976. Even after, Borg didn't bother to compete there out of a scheduling protest.
More of Sampras fan myself, loved serve and volley back in the days. Agassi was excellent player in 2005 still. Not in his prime of course but his level of play was IMO better in that stage of his career compared to Roddicks last two-three years.
Well Coria is a clay court specialist. He's a bit of a mug on hard and grass. Ferrer is obviously more rounded, but I don't think he's the better clay courter. I'm comparing the clay field rather than all round players. Ferrer is inferior as a hard court player compared to guys like Nalbandian and Davydenko. Having more clay court specialists IMO makes the field much harder than all court specialists, whose worst surface is clay.
Gaudio is a clay court specialist. Yes he's inferior to the likes of Kuerten, Ferrero and the likes, but when Nadal was in his prime who had better results than him on that surface. As poor as Gaudio is he met Nadal 6 times on clay and the result is 3-3. Bagelled him in Buenos Aires(and this time won the match)
Apart from Ferrer, who else did Nadal face as a pure clay court specialist during that time? The very top and best players in the last 10 years are first and foremost HC specialists - where Federer has won the majority of his slams.I disagree about this. A clay court specialist is better than all rounder for me when playing on that particular surface. Take Kuerten for example - a guy who is clearly inferior to Djokovic or Murray on hard and grass, but is miles better player on clay. Same for Juan Carlos Ferrero.
This is how clay courters in the 90s and early 2000s got their high rankings - by staying primarily on the European clay court circuit for most of the year and generally only playing in slams (leveraging their high rankings to stay afloat for longer than they otherwise would have) only to crash out in the round of 16 or quarters.
*All 3 wins coming before Nadal was even 20, one when he was 17!
Indeed. They could do that due to the high number of clay events during the year. Most of the HC events were a lot faster than today which made it harder for the transition and usually those guys sucked at the USO or Wimbey.
Prime example of this is Bruguera who missed the AO and Wimbey often and the US/Canada masters as well.
Overall for central theme of your argument, I don't know why you are fixated on clay so much. Being one surface player and being bad at others doesn't make player special. Kuerten was a fine Clay court player and it would have been fun watching him vs Nadal prime but just because there were lots of clay court specialists back then, doesn't mean that era was better. If you mean any of those would have stopped Nadal winning 9, then I disagree. Only Kuerten maybe but no point comparing them otherwise one will have to go in hypothetical scenarios of Federer vs Sampras or some others in prime on grass. Another thing you can note is that as good as these guys were on clay, there was no consistency. Since I am following tennis for early 90s I know this very well because I used to wonder it back then too. A player who was very good on one surface was 1) quite awful on other 2) on even preferred surface, many of these were inconsistent and erratic.More of Sampras fan myself, loved serve and volley back in the days. Agassi was excellent player in 2005 still. Not in his prime of course but his level of play was IMO better in that stage of his career compared to Roddicks last two-three years.
Well Coria is a clay court specialist. He's a bit of a mug on hard and grass. Ferrer is obviously more rounded, but I don't think he's the better clay courter. I'm comparing the clay field rather than all round players. Ferrer is inferior as a hard court player compared to guys like Nalbandian and Davydenko. Having more clay court specialists IMO makes the field much harder than all court specialists, whose worst surface is clay.
Gaudio is a clay court specialist. Yes he's inferior to the likes of Kuerten, Ferrero and the likes, but when Nadal was in his prime who had better results than him on that surface. As poor as Gaudio is he met Nadal 6 times on clay and the result is 3-3. Bagelled him in Buenos Aires(and this time won the match)
I disagree about this. A clay court specialist is better than all rounder for me when playing on that particular surface. Take Kuerten for example - a guy who is clearly inferior to Djokovic or Murray on hard and grass, but is miles better player on clay. Same for Juan Carlos Ferrero.
Also there was tendency back then of clay court specialists to only concentrate on clay tournaments, use them to gain ATP points and rankings and not worry about rest. Players in last decade have developed to improve all-round game.
True of course, he's inferior to Nadal, but (not entirely sure) he was the last man to beat Nadal on clay before his 81 CC run in 05-07.
There's also JCF who straight setted Nadal in MC in 08. A guy who was practically done at the highest level circa 04.
was a very high quality match as well.
Aye I follow tennis from the 90's as well, the same time as football really. The reason why there was clay court specialists, grass court specialists, carpet specialists and hard court specialists back then was due to the very different conditions back then.
For example the grass and carpet favorites big hitters and guys who had excellent serve and volley game. Most of the clay grinders back then came to the net only to shake hands.
Clay court as well - slow bouncy surface with a lot of grinding - polar opposite to those who preferred carpet and grass.
Hard courts - a bounce you can anticipate, lower than clay but higher than grass.
So yeah you couldn't be good at all of them as you had to be really extraordinary player. Even Agassi who is probably the best all rounder at the time was not as consistent - just like the specialists I mentioned.
I'm not implying that any of those will beat Nadal regularly or something, but they will give him much tougher time than what he faced as a competition. Guga vs Nadal is obviously a game that would pose serious question to Nadal and he's one who can beat him couple of times at the RG.
Anyways that's my .02, obviously you might see things differently mate.
Yeah agree that surfaces have changed and not just clay. It was tough for all to be good at every surface but even on preferred surfaces players weren't greatly consistent (except few). In the end, even with changes in surface, overall evaluation will take into account all surfaces. Otherwise in last decade, sport has got technology benefit in opponent analysis, fitness has been taken to a different level with advancement in that area so it is bit of a different game now. I have found it most enjoyable though. Don't know how it will be once big 3 and Murray-Wawrinka etc call it a day.
I personally, hence don't want to differentiate much between Federer and Nadal. All said and done both have legit claims to be the best. Or we could just say that both are among greatest of all time and even among them, at a slightly higher level than other greats.
Yeah that's the fairest thing to say. It's always hard to compare the greatest, if we have to we have to go by the achievements where Federer leads. But even with them who's to say Sampras can't take him out at Wimbey(especially old Wimbey) having in mind their game. It's all hypothetical scenarios but I found the different surfaces more enjoyable to be honest.
You can watch two players grind on clay or servefest on grass. Fast courts at the USO and carpet or slow ones at the AO and Miami. It was a bit more fun - different playing styles, more variety, different players, etc.
Nowadays even at wimbey at the second week you can see players grind it out, ffs. It's just too homogenized. I can see the merit for that as you have top players always in the last stages of tournaments which attracts spectators, sponsors, but to me is less enjoyable as a sport than it was before. That or a sure sign I'm getting older.
Agree with that. FWIW, I do still think the likes of Djoko and Nadal are that talented, they would still thrive at Wimbo even on the old grass (their passing shots are spectacular).. but no doubt it would make for a better spectacle.Nowadays even at wimbey at the second week you can see players grind it out, ffs. It's just too homogenized. I can see the merit for that as you have top players always in the last stages of tournaments which attracts spectators, sponsors, but to me is less enjoyable as a sport than it was before. That or a sure sign I'm getting older.
Dare I say it, but they'd have been even better players for the experience.
Yeah that's beyond doubt. Racket technology also helped them a lot in that sense(passing shots). But also imagine giving Ivanisevic and Sampras a todays racket and the effect on their service game. Scary.
Be interesting to go through Murray/Djoko/Nadal's records against the best servers on grass. I'd say they'd have close to 100% win rates, but would be more interested in seeing the actual scores of their matches.
If the results are very close i.e. mostly 7-6 sets, you could hypothesize that if they're just nicking past guys like Karlovic/Isner.. a GOAT server with stronger all round games like a Sampras would beat them on the old grass.
Karlovic and Isner are not exactly what I'd call grass players tho. They suck at the net and their advantage is only the big serve and finishing off floating returns at the net.
The closest one to those players would probably be Ancic. Pity injuries ruined him, but he had very good net game given the era he played in.
I think he only played Murray/Djokovic once on grass tho - very long time ago when Djokovic was young.
Oh of course not, but just saying that obviously the serve plays a big part on grass.. and considering how 'sucky' they are, if they're posing a challenge on these slower grass courts, one can only imagine the hell that would be unleashed by Pistol Pete.
Yeah, indeed. Maybe Delpo then? Obviously with his injuries is hard to gauge his form and general level, but he did beat Murray at the Olympics on grass and took prime Djoko to 5 at Wimbey.
What? I thought he was utter crap.
Murray? Disagree massively if so. That was the best I ever saw Roddick play and if not for a bottle job in the final he'd have won the whole thing.