PDA

View Full Version : Most dominant player at a particular slam


gold soundz
06-10-2011, 08:52 PM
Who do you think out of these three players was/is the most dominant at a particular slam? Sampras at Wimbledon, Federer at Wimbledon or Nadal at Roland Garros?

JeMar
06-10-2011, 08:53 PM
Of the listed, probably Nadal at Roland Garros.

powerangle
06-10-2011, 09:00 PM
Nadal is most dominant.

Sampras had more years to accrue his seven titles.

Federer not a part of this equation unless he wins at least a couple more Wimby titles.

Semi-Pro
06-10-2011, 09:07 PM
Borg at FO???????

TheNatural
06-10-2011, 09:15 PM
Nadal is most dominant.

Sampras had more years to accrue his seven titles.

Federer not a part of this equation unless he wins at least a couple more Wimby titles.

huh, Sampras won 7 Wimbledons in 8 years. The only way to be more dominant is to accrue 7 in 7 years or 8 Wimbledons in 8 years.

powerangle
06-10-2011, 09:22 PM
huh, Sampras won 7 Wimbledons in 8 years. The only way to be more dominant is to accrue 7 in 7 years or 8 Wimbledons in 8 years.

And how many times did Sampras lose at Wimbledon before he won his first Wimbledon?

Rafa's winning percentage at RG is higher than Sampras' at Wimbledon.

Murrayfan31
06-10-2011, 09:25 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kW4z0FnUz4o

TheNatural
06-10-2011, 09:46 PM
And how many times did Sampras lose at Wimbledon before he won his first Wimbledon?

Rafa's winning percentage at RG is higher than Sampras' at Wimbledon.

We're talking about dominance, whenever that dominance began does not matter, as it wasn't dominance yet before the dominance began. Nadal would need to win the Fo next year as well to have won it 7 times in 8 years like Sampras.

NadalAgassi
06-10-2011, 09:51 PM
Nadal at Roland Garros for sure. This is the first year since 2005 where going in you didnt feel it was completely impossible for him to lose, despite that he actually did lose in a shocker in 2009.

Sampras was amazing and extremely dominant at Wimbledon but most years you felt there were a couple others or more who had a shot of beating him.

Federer I feel is more dominant at the U.S Open than Wimbledon I feel actually. Not as dominant at either as Nadal at the French or even Sampras at Wimbledon though.

powerangle
06-10-2011, 09:52 PM
We're talking about dominance, whenever that dominance began does not matter, as it wasn't dominance yet before the dominance began. Nadal would need to win the Fo next year as well to have won it 7 times in 8 years like Sampras.

Well that's your opinion. Sampras also started losing early rounds after 2000 Wimbledon.

I think Rafa is more dominant at RG. Until Rafa loses early, I consider him more dominant.

NadalAgassi
06-10-2011, 09:55 PM
Sampras was one of the favorites in 1992 and lost to Ivanisevic in the semis and was the #1 seed in 2001 when he lost to 19 year old Federer. I dont think he was in his prime for either one, but those losses definitely still count comparing him to Nadal at Roland Garros.
It is not like Nadal in 2005 or 2006 was in his prime either.

Murrayfan31
06-10-2011, 11:01 PM
Well that's your opinion. Sampras also started losing early rounds after 2000 Wimbledon.

I think Rafa is more dominant at RG. Until Rafa loses early, I consider him more dominant.
Hmm Hmm 2009. lol

powerangle
06-10-2011, 11:21 PM
Hmm Hmm 2009. lol

Win-loss records.

TheNatural
06-10-2011, 11:27 PM
And how many times did Sampras lose at Wimbledon before he won his first Wimbledon?

Rafa's winning percentage at RG is higher than Sampras' at Wimbledon.

By that logic, Nadal (or any player) would be the most dominant player ever at a particular slam, if they won their first slam there in their first attempt and then retired immediately.:)

Murrayfan31
06-10-2011, 11:40 PM
Borg didn't care how long the points were. He wasn't going to miss. He is the most dominant French Open player ever.

TheNatural
06-10-2011, 11:43 PM
Here are the results:

1/ Sampras 7 Wimbledons in 8 years (87.5% in an 8 year period of dominance)

2/ Nadal 6 FO's in 7 years (85.7% in a 7 year period of dominance)

3/ Federer 6 Wimbledons in 7 years (85.7% in a 7 year period of dominance)


and the winner is...

http://media.scpr.org/images/2010/12/08/Pete_Sampras-lead.jpg

powerangle
06-11-2011, 12:03 AM
By that logic, Nadal (or any player) would be the most dominant player ever at a particular slam, if they won their first slam there in their first attempt and then retired immediately.:)

That's your choice to choose Sampras.

Rafa winning RG on his debut, and having only lost one match so far, and having 6 titles, is more dominant for me. This may change if Rafa loses early next year.

Rafa's winning percentage plus 6 titles is more dominant according to me.

TheNatural
06-11-2011, 12:22 AM
That's your choice to choose Sampras.

Rafa winning RG on his debut, and having only lost one match so far, and having 6 titles, is more dominant for me. This may change if Rafa loses early next year.

Rafa's winning percentage plus 6 titles is more dominant according to me.

I didn't choose Sampras, the numbers chose Sampras.

powerangle
06-11-2011, 12:25 AM
I didn't choose Sampras, the numbers chose Sampras.

Your numbers chose Sampras. A select 8 year period for Sampras, discounting his losses in other years.

My numbers chose Nadal. A 7 year period, starting from his debut until now.

You have your criteria, and I have mine (which includes Rafa dropping fewer sets).

Sharpshooter
06-11-2011, 12:25 AM
As dominant as Nadal has been, you'd have to give it to Petros unbelievable WImbledon record he has. Fed ranks third out of those 3.

Another deciding factor could also be how close they have been pushed at their respective slams during their dominating period.

Fed has had to go through 3 5 setters, losing 1 of them
Rafa has had to go through only 1 5 setter
Sampras went through 4 5 setters

So to summarise, they have all lost at least once in their dominating periods. Fed had been pushed all the way 3 times, Sampras 4 times (but in 8 years an extra year than Fed) but Nadal has been pushed all the way only once. This means that players weren't even getting close to beating Nadal at RG apart from the one loss to Soderling.

But to me the amount of titles won is more important, that's why I give the edge to Sampras because it is harder to win 7 over 8 years than it is to win 6 over 7 years. If Rafa wins RG number 7 next year, then he will undoubtedly be the more dominant provided he isn't pushed to 5 sets in 3 of his matches, otherwise statistically he would be equal with Pete.

TheNatural
06-11-2011, 12:42 AM
Your numbers chose Sampras. A select 8 year period for Sampras, discounting his losses in other years.

My numbers chose Nadal. A 7 year period, starting from his debut until now.

You have your criteria, and I have mine (which includes Rafa dropping fewer sets).

it just seems logical that winning 7 slams is more dominant than winning 6. In that period of Sampras' dominance he also had a period where he had won 6 Wimbledons in 7 years, but he improved it by winning 7 in 8 years.

TheNatural
06-11-2011, 12:45 AM
As dominant as Nadal has been, you'd have to give it to Petros unbelievable WImbledon record he has. Fed ranks third out of those 3.

Another deciding factor could also be how close they have been pushed at their respective slams during their dominating period.

Fed has had to go through 3 5 setters, losing 1 of them
Rafa has had to go through only 1 5 setter
Sampras went through 4 5 setters

So to summarise, they have all lost at least once in their dominating periods. Fed had been pushed all the way 3 times, Sampras 4 times (but in 8 years an extra year than Fed) but Nadal has been pushed all the way only once. This means that players weren't even getting close to beating Nadal at RG apart from the one loss to Soderling.

But to me the amount of titles won is more important, that's why I give the edge to Sampras because it is harder to win 7 over 8 years than it is to win 6 over 7 years. If Rafa wins RG number 7 next year, then he will undoubtedly be the more dominant provided he isn't pushed to 5 sets in 3 of his matches, otherwise statistically he would be equal with Pete.

I agree with all that logic basically.

powerangle
06-11-2011, 12:48 AM
it just seems logical that winning 7 slams is more dominant than winning 6. In that period of Sampras' dominance he also had a period where he had won 6 Wimbledons in 7 years, but he improved it by winning 7 in 8 years.

I didn't say your criteria was illogical. Just a different opinion in regards to being most dominant.

glazkovss
06-13-2011, 02:02 AM
Nadal so far, but things can change

sonicare
06-13-2011, 03:53 AM
lol @ people voting for nadal... he didnt even win 5 in a row at RG. Pete never did win five in a row either.

Answer is borg/fed at wimbledon or fed at USO... you rafaholics are pretty lame.