Never

Never


It’s an anomaly that we have 3 of the time 5 of all time playing at once


Look at Murray. In other age he would be Becker or edberg or Agassi. Prob finish 6-7 majors

But here. Lucky to hit 3

Neversaynever.cliche

I mean, it might take 100 years for 1 guy to surpass Fed, and 200 years to get a 3+ top player Platinum Age, but it's gonna happen eventually.

I'm not even sure what my own answers are, but maybe something like 30-50 years for GOAT, and 100+ years for Platinum Age.

I could be convinced of wildly different answers though. I mean, people might have contemplated this question when Sampras was playing Agassi (then GOAT vs very high level player), and the true GOAT & Golden Age were right around the corner.

No one was contemplating this when Sampras was playing Agassi.

I don't mean, contemplated whether the GOAT might never be surpassed. I mean, some might have posed the question, if Pete (or whoever) is considered the GOAT currently, how long do you think it will be before somebody surpasses him? I would guess that the answer would have been longer than the brief amount of time it took Federer to emerge.

Re: Golden Age, yes, you are correct.

36 consecutive QFs, 23 consecutive SFs, and in there, really, 19 straight finals if you give him the one where he was actually sick (yes it was that one).

I would like to admit the Wimbledon 2009 F as evidence Lot number 20 directly contrary to testimony given previously, your honor.

It’s much more impressive than you make it sound. Djok was 41-0 since his last loss in 2010 coming into their 2011 RG SF match. Fed played one of the best matches he could have ever played and outlasted djok and outserved and outvolleyed him. He beat the best player in the world having arguably the first or second best year of tennis ever while djok was playing his best. Djok made very few errors that match. Fed just took it from him.

Huh? You are writing this in support of my point, right?

In that Wimbledon 2009 match, prime Fed could not even break Roddick until the very end, and barely won 2 tiebreakers on variance, while Roddick did break Fed multiple times in order to win sets.

That match would point towards prime Sampras v Fed being a variance fest going to tiebreakers and an epic 5th set, with the outcome being a lot closer to 50-50 than 70-30. Thank you for pointing it out.

Better example would be Fed Vs Murray from about 3 years ago in Wimbledon semi final. Best serving performance of all time.

Then he was **** in the final. I remember thinking if he can serve even close to that he’d beat Novak comfortably.

I mean this is the thread end right now.

No dude. You said “fed can’t win bc he won’t be able to break Pete as much” and I gave you an example of a match where Fed NEVER broke his opponent in 5 sets until it was 14-14 in the 5th. My point is fed ishungrier, more mentally tough, and finds ways to win more than Sampras ever did.

Down 1-3 in the 5th in the AUS final vs your all time rival who’s up on you in head to head wins and you still find a way to win that match without your opponent really dropping their level of play much if at all? You can do that you can clear 7/10 times. In support of this, fed v Agassi is 8-3 fed. Now ofc that’s not prime Agassi and prime Pete is better than prime Agassi but fed wasn’t prime fed in all those matches either. He’s arguably better right now than he was for at least 8 of the 11 matches he played vs Agassi. So when you’re that hungry and that talented, when you want to win, the only people who can beat you consistently are a perfect counter matchup or the best players in the world playing their best.

Everrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. It was like:

75% FSI
85% win on first
55% win on second serves

He basically lost like 20 points on serve in 20 service games (90ish total points). And what those stats don’t show is how easily he seemed to do it.

I’ve pointed this out numerous times in the thread lol. The 19 straight grand slam finals, if we give him 2008AUS as a final bc he played the whole match w a bad flu, then that’s an untouchable record. Even 10 in a row is untouchable bc the next best is 8 (fed also) then 7 (laver?).

And with the other two records, you can see how dominant he was by how many the next best had. They’re both djoker IIRC and it’s like 21 QFs and 13SFs

He had glandular fever

Check the tape before you make false statements. You even quoted me in your first response. I said: "Although Fed > Sampras, my contention is that he will not be able to break Sampras often enough to have a 70-30 edge. It will go to tiebreakers a huge amount of the time."

Right, which is why that is a data point in my favor. That was very close to a 50-50 match. If Fed never breaks his opponent, and the match is tied at 12-12 in the 5th set at Wimbledon...that is much much closer to a 50-50 match than a 70-30 match.

Maybe. Even if true, so what? It doesn't give Fed a 70-30 advantage at Wimbledon, if he can't consistently break prime Sampras on grass.

You are looking at this all wrong

Fed will break Sampras more often

Which logic concludes he will win more

And even playing one of the best servers of all time, on grass, having his best service day ever

Fed broke only once

Still won


That’s how fed will win 70%+


Even if Sampras gets broken once he might lose

Or he can lose 6-6-6

What terrible logic. I could agree with almost everything you wrote, and absolutely nothing in it supports 70%+. You might as well have written:

Fed plays one of the all time great servers on grass
Having a career serving day
Fed only gets 1 break
Fed still wins even in that scenario


Sampras has all time serving game
Only gets broken once
Fed still wins


You can see that if fed can beat an all time server serving at his best, on grass, at Wimbledon, by only breaking him once, yeah that’s a direct line to how it’s going to go with Sampras

Sampras is better off the ground than Roddick, but fed is going to dominate his own serve

In that one game. It's actually impressive how obtuse and results-oriented you're being.

Question - in that particular match, when Federer had not broken his opponent's serve, but had been broken multiple times himself, when it was 12-12 in the 5th set - was the expected outcome closer to 50-50 or 70-30?


The results-oriented is so strong with you, that it deserves a terrible poker analogy. You are basically saying:

Federer is better post-flop, better at hand-reading, and better at bluffing.
But even if they're all-in preflop every hand, Fed will still find a way to consistently win...and with at least a 70-30 edge, no less!

Djok-Federer matchups since 2009 (winner noted):

2016 Aus Djok -303/+250
2015 Wim Djok +102/-108
2015 US Djok -125/+120
2014 Wim Djok -152/+131
2012 RG Djok -175/+144
2012 Wim Fed +179/-222
2011 Aus Djok +173/-217
2011 RG Fed +222/-278
2011 US Djok -182/+150
2010 US Djok +245/-312
2009 US Fed -417/+319


At RG Djok was big favorite both times, they split. Ex ante Djok legit favorite, ex post Djok still favored.

Not sure how you figure Federer should not be the dog here.

In that match, it was probably 50-50 that fed would win. An exact coin flip


So the matches fed breaks once, vs and all time great serving performance. He’s still 50/50 to win

What about when fed breaks three times vs an above average serving performance? 80-20?


Like the best case scenario for a big server and average ground game is to be 50-50 in the fifth set when you haven’t been broken

It’s going to be hard to win 30% of your matches when at your best you are only winning 50-50


I’m done with part of the argument. It’s clear you don’t understand math.

Federer is a better clay court player than Novak. Spoiler, head to head isn’t the only stat

If it is, we’ve established that kokkanokis is the reigning Goat

Wait- since the start of the 2011 season Fed has only beat Novak once?! And zero times since 2012?

In majors, yes. In other tourneys including the 2015 ATP tour final? No.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/playe...ovic/F324/D643