PDA

View Full Version : Federer: GOAT Discussion Handled Easily


Conquistador
06-08-2009, 05:38 PM
Its a real simple forumula. If individuals want to compare Sampras to the great Federer, look no further than to count the winning percentages on each of the 3 surfaces. Can we get head to head statistics, please..Also people that want to compare laver, nadal, etc....lets look at the hard facts and look at winning percentages on each surface. Nadal-we can count his in a few years, but for all the Federer haters--lets look at the stat book on this one.

Cenc
06-08-2009, 10:38 PM
Its a real simple forumula. If individuals want to compare Sampras to the great Federer, look no further than to count the winning percentages on each of the 3 surfaces. Can we get head to head statistics, please..Also people that want to compare laver, nadal, etc....lets look at the hard facts and look at winning percentages on each surface. Nadal-we can count his in a few years, but for all the Federer haters--lets look at the stat book on this one.

man u ok? this is obsession
u start a topic every 12 hours to write how fed is amazing even though i see less and less comments every time u start something
if you are an obsessed female fan then ok
but since i doubt so then... :-? its kinda weird that ur so obsessed by fed

btw there are 4 surfaces but the 4th one shouldnt be mentioned in the same sentence with fed because fed did less on carpet than sampras did on clay

Chelsea_Kiwi
06-08-2009, 10:55 PM
man u ok? this is obsession
u start a topic every 12 hours to write how fed is amazing even though i see less and less comments every time u start something
if you are an obsessed female fan then ok
but since i doubt so then... :-? its kinda weird that ur so obsessed by fed

btw there are 4 surfaces but the 4th one shouldnt be mentioned in the same sentence with fed because fed did less on carpet than sampras did on clay What's so wierd about that???? You're obsessed with Sampras so it kind of destroys your point of you taking the high ground.

Also how does being male/female have anything to do with what he is talking about?

Thanks for ignoring the fact that carpet is hardly played on in todays game but I it doesn't matter I suppose because according to you it is as important as clay :-?

Grass: Federer (81–12) 87.1% Sampras (101–20) 84%
Carpet: Sampras (148-47) 76% Federer (50–19) 72.46
Clay: Federer (139–42) 76.8% Sampras (90–54) 63%
Hard: Federer (380–82) 82.25% Sampras (423–101) 81%

Cenc
06-09-2009, 02:19 AM
What's so wierd about that???? You're obsessed with Sampras so it kind of destroys your point of you taking the high ground.

Also how does being male/female have anything to do with what he is talking about?

Thanks for ignoring the fact that carpet is hardly played on in todays game but I it doesn't matter I suppose because according to you it is as important as clay :-?

Grass: Federer (8112) 87.1% Sampras (10120) 84%
Carpet: Sampras (148-47) 76% Federer (5019) 72.46
Clay: Federer (13942) 76.8% Sampras (9054) 63%
Hard: Federer (38082) 82.25% Sampras (423101) 81%

im not obsessed by sampras, not even his fan so you fail
can you tell me what these numbers mean except stupid idea of proving that fed is better grasscourter than sampras? i guess even federer isnt that arrogant to think that

and let me remind you
throughout players career there are 2 "weak parts of it"
1) beginning of the career when guy is young and inexperienced
and 2) even weaker one when guy is way too old to be as competetive as before
so these numbers mean actually nothing until fed gets through the last part in 4 or so years

Rhino
06-09-2009, 03:21 AM
and let me remind you
throughout players career there are 2 "weak parts of it"
1) beginning of the career when guy is young and inexperienced
and 2) even weaker one when guy is way too old to be as competetive as before
so these numbers mean actually nothing until fed gets through the last part in 4 or so years

Yes but he has the Career Grand Slam, and (a minimum of) 14 slam titles, at the age of 27, so how is there even a case for Sampras?

raiden031
06-09-2009, 03:25 AM
and let me remind you
throughout players career there are 2 "weak parts of it"
1) beginning of the career when guy is young and inexperienced
and 2) even weaker one when guy is way too old to be as competetive as before
so these numbers mean actually nothing until fed gets through the last part in 4 or so years

Even then these percentages wouldn't count because Fed may decide to stay in the game longer past his prime than Sampras did, continuing to worsen his percentages.

hoodjem
08-03-2009, 05:54 AM
The numbers would seem to put Fed in fifth or sixth place--

Combining Grand Slam titles with Pro majors, Rosewall won 23 "major" titles in his career, Laver won 19, Federer has captured 15, and Sampras and Gonzalez both won 14.

Considering all semifinal, final, and championship results in majors, we find Rosewall at unbelievable 52 (total semifinal, final and championship results in majors), followed by Tilden (35), Laver (32), Connors (31), Gonzalez (29), and Federer (22).

Laver won at least 199 tournaments, followed by Tilden (161), Jaroslav Drobny and Connors (each 148 ), Lendl (144), Rosewall (136), Roy Emerson (114), Tony Wilding (112), Borg (100), McEnroe (99), and Federer or Sampras (64).

Gonzalez seems to be the best at World No. 1 being that for at least 6 years, tied with Sampras. Federer owned the year-end top spot for 4 years (2004-2007). But if we include those years when a player has reached a co-No.1 position, we get a significantly different picture: Gonzalez and Rosewall, each 9 years on the top, Laver at 8 years, followed by Budge, Tilden, Vines, and Kramer each 7 years.

In terms of years spent in the top-10 in the world, remember that computer rankings were not used in the pre-Open Era. Tilden and Rosewall lead with 23 years in the top-10, Gonzalez spent 22 years (if we project 1962 and 1963 when Pancho did not play but probably would have been among top ten, even top three), Budge and Segura, each 19 years.

Rosewall, Gonzalez and Tilden are the outstanding players when it comes to their longevity. All three men were formidable players into their 40s. Rosewall won majors in a remarkable range that spanned from 1953-1972.

Concerning the longest streak of winning majors, this list is headed by Rosewall (9), Tilden (8 ) and Budge (6). Concerning a streak of top placings in majors, two players are outstanding: Rosewall (34) and Federer (21). It's fair to mention that in open era such streaks were more difficult to achieve than in Rosewall's time (1954-1968 ). Rod Laver has still the record regarding big finals reached in a row 1964 to 1968: 14.

Regarding a best 5-year span or career high, the most titles in a five-year period were won by Laver (82). The best percentage of titles in a five-year belongs to Tilden (approximately .815). The most majors won during a five-year period were won by Federer (12). The best percentage of majors in five-year period keep Tilden and Vines at the top (both .1000).

Finally, if one cares to consider doubles play (Federer is rightly proud of his Olympic gold medal in doubles), in the pre-Open Era virtually all players played in the doubles competition (often even the mixed doubles), while today most top players often refuse to play doubles. The players with the most major doubles titles (excluding mixed doubles) are: Rosewall (23), Hoad (21), Newcombe (17) and Emerson (16). Bob Hewitt has won 163 doubles titles which is all-time record.

sh@de
08-03-2009, 06:24 AM
The numbers would seem to put Fed in fifth or sixth place--

Combining Grand Slam titles with Pro majors, Rosewall won 23 "major" titles in his career, Laver won 19, Federer has captured 15, and Sampras and Gonzalez both won 14.

Considering all semifinal, final, and championship results in majors, we find Rosewall at unbelievable 52 (total semifinal, final and championship results in majors), followed by Tilden (35), Laver (32), Connors (31), Gonzalez (29), and Federer (22).

Laver won at least 199 tournaments, followed by Tilden (161), Jaroslav Drobny and Connors (each 148 ), Lendl (144), Rosewall (136), Roy Emerson (114), Tony Wilding (112), Borg (100), McEnroe (99), and Federer or Sampras (64).

Gonzalez seems to be the best at World No. 1 being that for at least 6 years, tied with Sampras. Federer owned the year-end top spot for 4 years (2004-2007). But if we include those years when a player has reached a co-No.1 position, we get a significantly different picture: Gonzalez and Rosewall, each 9 years on the top, Laver at 8 years, followed by Budge, Tilden, Vines, and Kramer each 7 years.

In terms of years spent in the top-10 in the world, remember that computer rankings were not used in the pre-Open Era. Tilden and Rosewall lead with 23 years in the top-10, Gonzalez spent 22 years (if we project 1962 and 1963 when Pancho did not play but probably would have been among top ten, even top three), Budge and Segura, each 19 years.

Rosewall, Gonzalez and Tilden are the outstanding players when it comes to their longevity. All three men were formidable players into their 40s. Rosewall won majors in a remarkable range that spanned from 1953-1972.

Concerning the longest streak of winning majors, this list is headed by Rosewall (9), Tilden (8 ) and Budge (6). Concerning a streak of top placings in majors, two players are outstanding: Rosewall (34) and Federer (21). It's fair to mention that in open era such streaks were more difficult to achieve than in Rosewall's time (1954-1968 ). Rod Laver has still the record regarding big finals reached in a row 1964 to 1968: 14.

Regarding a best 5-year span or career high, the most titles in a five-year period were won by Laver (82). The best percentage of titles in a five-year belongs to Tilden (approximately .815). The most majors won during a five-year period were won by Federer (12). The best percentage of majors in five-year period keep Tilden and Vines at the top (both .1000).

Finally, if one cares to consider doubles play (Federer is rightly proud of his Olympic gold medal in doubles), in the pre-Open Era virtually all players played in the doubles competition (often even the mixed doubles), while today most top players often refuse to play doubles. The players with the most major doubles titles (excluding mixed doubles) are: Rosewall (23), Hoad (21), Newcombe (17) and Emerson (16). Bob Hewitt has won 163 doubles titles which is all-time record.

Have you been posting this in EVERY GOAT discussion thread???

Serendipitous
08-03-2009, 06:53 AM
Its a real simple forumula. If individuals want to compare Andreev to the great Federer, look no further than to count the winning percentages on each of the 3 surfaces. Can we get head to head statistics, please..Also people that want to compare Isner, Spadea, etc....lets look at the hard facts and look at winning percentages on each surface. Karlovic-we can count his in a few years, but for all the Gicquel haters--lets look at the stat book on this one.

VivalaVida
08-03-2009, 06:54 AM
Its a real simple forumula. If individuals want to compare Andreev to the great Federer, look no further than to count the winning percentages on each of the 3 surfaces. Can we get head to head statistics, please..Also people that want to compare Isner, Spadea, etc....lets look at the hard facts and look at winning percentages on each surface. Karlovic-we can count his in a few years, but for all the Gicquel haters--lets look at the stat book on this one.
Damn. You really love crushing Conquistador dont you?

VivalaVida
08-03-2009, 06:56 AM
Yes, I'm sorry. :(:(
No its all fine :lol: I think you do a good job manipulating his posts. Always worth a laugh

S H O W S T O P P E R !
08-03-2009, 07:26 AM
Holy crap stop digging up all these threads from a month ago.

tacou
08-03-2009, 07:41 AM
wow, you solved it !
wait...nope.