PDA

View Full Version : What is more impressive? Sampras and Federer


McEnroeisanartist
10-29-2012, 01:56 PM
Sampras - 6 Years at #1 (record), 6 Years in top 2 (4th all time), 9 years in top 3 (3rd all time)

Federer - 5 Years at #1 (2nd all time), 9 Years in top 2 (record), 10 years in top 3 (2nd all time)

PeteD
10-29-2012, 02:00 PM
Federer, because his career is ongoing, and if his eventual decline is anything like Agassi's, or Connors, Federer will be a threat for the top slots for years.

Gonzo_style
10-29-2012, 02:06 PM
Sampras - 6 Years at #1 (record), 6 Years in top 2 (4th all time), 9 years in top 3 (3rd all time)

Federer - 5 Years at #1 (2nd all time), 9 Years in top 2 (record), 10 years in top 3 (2nd all time)

Murray has a chance to finish this year in second place, it will be difficult but it's still possible...

Prisoner of Birth
10-29-2012, 02:14 PM
I'd say Sampras by a breadth of a hair, stats-wise. But as a career, again going just by the stats, I might go for significantly greater longevity over marginally better peaks and say Federer.

tennis_pro
10-29-2012, 02:19 PM
Purely statistical I'd go with Sampras' 6 years in a row. Though looking at some of the years he ended no 1, like 1998 where he had results comparable to Del Potro in 2009 (yet Del Potro finished 5th), it makes you wonder about its value. Sampras had nobody consistent enough who could challenge him for the year-end-no-1 ranking like Federer who has Djokovic and Nadal.

Talker
10-29-2012, 02:27 PM
I'll go with Fed as he has 237 weeks at #1 without losng it and has had a good number of points ahead of everyone for many years.
Total number of weeks comes into play also.

Prisoner of Birth
10-29-2012, 02:29 PM
I'll go with Fed as he has 237 weeks at #1 without losng it and has had a good number of points ahead of everyone for many years.
Total number of weeks comes into play also.

If those stats are under consideration, too, I'd go with Federer too.

Agassifan
10-29-2012, 02:37 PM
Sampras - 6 Years at #1 (record), 6 Years in top 2 (4th all time), 9 years in top 3 (3rd all time)

Federer - 5 Years at #1 (2nd all time), 9 Years in top 2 (record), 10 years in top 3 (2nd all time)

Federer, easily... and that's not even considering the fact that Fed was No. 1 for longer than Pete.

Biscuitmcgriddleson
10-29-2012, 02:51 PM
237 weeks at number 1 isn't reflected in his 5 years at #1. Federer is the choice.

90's Clay
10-29-2012, 03:56 PM
Purely statistical I'd go with Sampras' 6 years in a row. Though looking at some of the years he ended no 1, like 1998 where he had results comparable to Del Potro in 2009 (yet Del Potro finished 5th), it makes you wonder about its value. Sampras had nobody consistent enough who could challenge him for the year-end-no-1 ranking like Federer who has Djokovic and Nadal.

Variation of surfaces, and lack of the racket technology which means you have to rely more on STRATEGY and precision, and various times attack stye of play can explain that as well.

90's Clay
10-29-2012, 03:57 PM
I'll go with Sampras as being a bit more impressive. Overrall, there was more depth and threats (for the first half of the 90s at least) then there was from Fed's prime-present.


Also, taking into account there were variations of conditions, which meant no one could be as consistent year round as they are today.

A big reason the top 4 is so dominant now is primarily because the conditions of tennis today permit that. Back in Pete's day, things were MUCH much different

Rebound Ace, to SLOW freakin clay season, to LIGHTNING fast grass season to fast hard court and carpet season.

spacediver
10-29-2012, 05:13 PM
Sampras - 6 Years at #1 (record), 6 Years in top 2 (4th all time), 9 years in top 3 (3rd all time)

Federer - 5 Years at #1 (2nd all time), 9 Years in top 2 (record), 10 years in top 3 (2nd all time)

I thought sampras only spent 286 weeks at #1, while federer surpassed that this summer. So how did you arrive at those "year" figures?

Towser83
10-29-2012, 05:18 PM
I thought sampras only spent 286 weeks at #1, while federer surpassed that this summer. So how did you arrive at those "year" figures?

he means year end number ones. So basically you could become number one in the last week of play and notch up 1 year end number one despite it only being a week worth of being number one.

Given that Federer has been number one for more overall weeks, I go with Federer. Does it really matter if you're number one on dec 31st, or let's say october 14th? Whenever you're number one it's based on the previous 52 weeks, so there's no difference really.

Btw, who has the record for most years in the top3?

BauerAlmeida
10-29-2012, 05:28 PM
he means year end number ones. So basically you could become number one in the last week of play and notch up 1 year end number one despite it only being a week worth of being number one.

Given that Federer has been number one for more overall weeks, I go with Federer. Does it really matter if you're number one on dec 31st, or let's say october 14th? Whenever you're number one it's based on the previous 52 weeks, so there's no difference really.

Btw, who has the record for most years in the top3?

Connors I think.

spacediver
10-29-2012, 05:29 PM
thanks for the clarification towser :)

kishnabe
10-29-2012, 06:18 PM
Sampras.....as much as I am a *******.

Federer needs to try to end YE Number 1 one more time or at least two more years in the top 3 to bypass Sampras in my opinion.

Though if you put in the 301 weeks at Number one and 237 consc weeks at Number one. Then I would put Federer by a mile.

PCXL-Fan
10-29-2012, 06:25 PM
If you want to compare the microcosm of just those stats sure Sampras edges Federer.

However Federer has more weeks as #1. Has been #1 for significantly longer, has more slams, better on clay, more consistant not losing to low rank players as often, etc etc etc...

Bridgette Wilson > Mirka
Sampras chia < Federer hair
Sampras Masculinity > Federer Masculinity
Sampras Metrosexuality < Federer Metrosexuality
Sampras Chest hair > Federer chest hair
Sampras' Spartan King Leonidas heritage > Federer's Gusteppi clockmaker heritage
Greek navy > Swiss navy

Sabratha
10-29-2012, 08:13 PM
Federer is more impressive.

Sim
10-29-2012, 08:16 PM
If you want to compare the microcosm of just those stats sure Sampras edges Federer.

However Federer has more weeks as #1. Has been #1 for significantly longer, has more slams, better on clay, more consistant not losing to low rank players as often, etc etc etc...

Bridgette Wilson > Mirka
Sampras chia < Federer hair
Sampras Masculinity > Federer Masculinity
Sampras Metrosexuality < Federer Metrosexuality
Sampras Chest hair > Federer chest hair
Sampras' Spartan King Leonidas heritage > Federer's Gusteppi clockmaker heritage
Greek navy > Swiss navy

hahaha
10hahas

RAFA2005RG
10-29-2012, 08:19 PM
Sampras - 6 Years at #1 (record), 6 Years in top 2 (4th all time), 9 years in top 3 (3rd all time)

Federer - 5 Years at #1 (2nd all time), 9 Years in top 2 (record), 10 years in top 3 (2nd all time)

Safe to say winning 52 of 53 matches at a slam towers over anything Sampfed ever did. And its only the beginning.

Tafmatch
10-29-2012, 09:49 PM
Thanks for your contribution.

Prisoner of Birth
10-29-2012, 09:53 PM
Safe to say winning 52 of 53 matches at a slam towers over anything Sampfed ever did. And its only the beginning.

You're begging to be Rosol'ed.

sbengte
10-30-2012, 01:46 AM
he means year end number ones. So basically you could become number one in the last week of play and notch up 1 year end number one despite it only being a week worth of being number one.

Given that Federer has been number one for more overall weeks, I go with Federer. Does it really matter if you're number one on dec 31st, or let's say october 14th? Whenever you're number one it's based on the previous 52 weeks, so there's no difference really.



Year end #1 just indicates who won the maximum ranking points in a calendar year. IMO, it is overrated just like a CYGS as against 4 slams in a row. Total weeks at #1 and consecutive weeks at #1 are definitely more meaningful than counting how many times you happened to be #1 on Dec 31 !.

SoBad
10-30-2012, 01:54 AM
Sampras is far more impressive. He had to deal with prime Safin, Kafelnikov, and Kuerten, while Federer piled up slams against no competition.

Towser83
10-30-2012, 06:14 AM
Sampras is far more impressive. He had to deal with prime Safin, Kafelnikov, and Kuerten, while Federer piled up slams against no competition.

Safin? safin is federer's era not sampras's. he won his first slam 10 years after sampras won his but only 3 years before federer won his. he retired a couple of years ago compared to sampras 10 years ago. When safin was in his prime sampras was almost done with his career.guga was a clay courter and i don't think sampras ever played him on clay. sampras mainly won against previous champions way past their best.

sbengte
10-30-2012, 06:42 AM
Safin? safin is federer's era not sampras's. he won his first slam 10 years after sampras won his but only 3 years before federer won his. he retired a couple of years ago compared to sampras 10 years ago. When safin was in his prime sampras was almost done with his career.guga was a clay courter and i don't think sampras ever played him on clay. sampras mainly won against previous champions way past their best.

You really think he was serious/meant it ? :)

Towser83
10-30-2012, 08:44 AM
You really think he was serious/meant it ? :)

To be fair its hard to tell sometimes. not too familiar with sobad's views.

forzamilan90
10-30-2012, 12:34 PM
Federer's is more impressive

Def
10-30-2012, 01:02 PM
Safe to say winning 52 of 53 matches at a slam towers over anything Sampfed ever did. And its only the beginning.

Nadal isnt even relevant to the topic at hand

NadalAgassi
10-30-2012, 01:03 PM
Sampras, no contest. 6 straight year end #1s vs not even reaching 6 total. Sampras was also pretty much certain to be the 1999 #1 had he not missed the U.S Open with injury which would have made it 7 straight.

McEnroeisanartist
10-30-2012, 01:08 PM
Sampras, no contest. 6 straight year end #1s vs not even reaching 6 total. Sampras was also pretty much certain to be the 1999 #1 had he not missed the U.S Open with injury which would have made it 7 straight.

That is pretty lame to say if he had not missed the U.S. Open with injury. That would be like a Federer worshiper saying if Federer didn't have Mono in 2008, he would have had more success and been number one for the year, which would have been 6 straight years.

NadalAgassi
10-30-2012, 01:10 PM
That is pretty lame to say if he had not missed the U.S. Open with injury. That would be like a Federer worshiper saying if Federer didn't have Mono in 2008, he would have had more success and been number one for the year, which would have been 6 straight years.

Federer worshippers all say that anyway, so what is your point. What is lame is making 85% of your posts nothing but the opening of another Federer worshipping thread, LOL! The point is at years end everyone considered Sampras the Worlds best tennis player 7 years in a row, which was reflected on a computer 6 years in a row. Federer does not even approach this in that sense. Yes his greatest years were better than Sampras's (in part due to non existent competition at the time) but that is not the topic you started.

heftylefty
10-30-2012, 01:13 PM
When did 14 become more impressive than 17?
Sampras is one of the all time greats, but compared to Federer Sampras was almost unheard of from Mami to SW19. That's a nice hunk of the tennis calendar.

Prisoner of Birth
10-30-2012, 01:13 PM
Federer worshippers all say that anyway, so what is your point. What is lame is making 85% of your posts nothing but the opening of another Federer worshipping thread, LOL! The point is at years end everyone considered Sampras the Worlds best tennis player 7 years in a row, which was reflected on a computer 6 years in a row. Federer does not even approach this in that sense. Yes his greatest years were better than Sampras's (in part due to non existent competition at the time) but that is not the topic you started.

Off-topic, sorry McEnroeisanartist, but hey, NA! Laver has just 13 pro-level Majors!

Gonzo_style
10-30-2012, 01:14 PM
When did 14 become more impressive than 17?
Sampras is one of the all time greats, but compared to Federer Sampras was almost unheard of from Mami to SW19. That's a nice hunk of the tennis calendar.

This thread is not about GS titles LOL

Prisoner of Birth
10-30-2012, 01:16 PM
Sampras, no contest. 6 straight year end #1s vs not even reaching 6 total. Sampras was also pretty much certain to be the 1999 #1 had he not missed the U.S Open with injury which would have made it 7 straight.

How many years was Sampras in the top 2 for, again?

Povl Carstensen
10-30-2012, 01:17 PM
Federer worshippers all say that anyway, so what is your point.You brought up injury.

heftylefty
10-30-2012, 01:17 PM
This thread is not about GS titles LOL

That's is my point. More weeks at number 1 is more impressive than title.

Isn't that what the WTA is trying to sell?

NadalAgassi
10-30-2012, 01:58 PM
That's is my point. More weeks at number 1 is more impressive than title.

Isn't that what the WTA is trying to sell?

The WTA arent trying to sell that anymore. They gave all their Player of Year awards to Kvitova last year, and will likely do the same with Serena this year. Even they are embarassed by their terrible ranking system, yet for some inexplicable reason refuse to go back to their much more accurate late 90s divisor system (under which to her defense Azarenka might still be #1 ranked this year, but no way would Wozniacki and many others have been).

Sampras though was the fully legit year end #1 all the years he was. From 1993 to 1998 he had the best slam results and best record of every year player everyone of those years. Only Agassi in 1995 in some ways had a better record, but with only 1 slam title and 2 finals vs Sampras's 2 slam titles and 3 slam finals, and no titles outside of outdoor hard court, Sampras was still the clear and rightful #1 when you look at it from the bigger perspective.

Polaris
10-30-2012, 02:54 PM
Was about to say "Cue for NadalAgassi to post an analysis that is extraordinarily precise yet extraordinarily inaccurate at the same time", but looked upstairs and realized that he has already done so. :)

Towser83
10-30-2012, 03:08 PM
Sampras, no contest. 6 straight year end #1s vs not even reaching 6 total. Sampras was also pretty much certain to be the 1999 #1 had he not missed the U.S Open with injury which would have made it 7 straight.

Well for me more weeks at number one beats, more times being number one on December 31st. You could technically have 8 YE number one finishes with less than 100 weeks in total as number one.

Every week you're number one it's based on the previous 52 weeks. Don't unerstand why stuff like year end number ones and calendar slams are more important than being number one longer and winning 4 consecutive slams over 2 years (not that anyone has done this since Navratilova maybe?)

At best it's debateable.

NadalAgassi
10-30-2012, 03:11 PM
Well for me more weeks at number one beats, more times being number one on December 31st. You could technically have 8 YE number one finishes with less than 100 weeks in total as number one.

Every week you're number one it's based on the previous 52 weeks. Don't unerstand why stuff like year end number ones and calendar slams are more important than being number one longer and winning 4 consecutive slams over 2 years (not that anyone has done this since Navratilova maybe?)

At best it's debateable.

I have always valued year end #1s more since to me it represents being the best player in the World for that year. Granted the WTA has ruined that with its new stupid ranking system which they put into place beginning in 2000, resulting in often the person who is NOT the best player in the World for the year ending at #1 which was never a problem before. However if you look at each year for the men the best player in the World of each year always ends it at #1. I cant think of a single exception to be honest, except for maybe Agassi over Sampras in 1999, and Federer over Nadal in 2009, but those were completely related to injuries allowing the lesser player of the time to have the better results and be #1, mostly due to the Worlds best player missing a slam they likely would have won due to injury which the aforementioned other player capatilized on by winning in their absence, not due to the ranking system.

Prisoner of Birth
10-30-2012, 03:39 PM
I have always valued year end #1s more since to me it represents being the best player in the World for that year. Granted the WTA has ruined that with its new stupid ranking system which they put into place beginning in 2000, resulting in often the person who is NOT the best player in the World for the year ending at #1 which was never a problem before. However if you look at each year for the men the best player in the World of each year always ends it at #1. I cant think of a single exception to be honest, except for maybe Agassi over Sampras in 1999, and Federer over Nadal in 2009, but those were completely related to injuries allowing the lesser player of the time to have the better results and be #1, mostly due to the Worlds best player missing a slam they likely would have won due to injury which the aforementioned other player capatilized on by winning in their absence, not due to the ranking system.

How can Federer possibly be undeserving in 2009 when he made all 4 Grand Slam finals, winning 2 of them, and going down fighting in 5-setters in the rest?

Towser83
10-30-2012, 03:40 PM
I have always valued year end #1s more since to me it represents being the best player in the World for that year. Granted the WTA has ruined that with its new stupid ranking system which they put into place beginning in 2000, resulting in often the person who is NOT the best player in the World for the year ending at #1 which was never a problem before. However if you look at each year for the men the best player in the World of each year always ends it at #1. I cant think of a single exception to be honest, except for maybe Agassi over Sampras in 1999, and Federer over Nadal in 2009, but those were completely related to injuries allowing the lesser player of the time to have the better results and be #1, mostly due to the Worlds best player missing a slam they likely would have won due to injury which the aforementioned other player capatilized on by winning in their absence, not due to the ranking system.


Yeah but anytime you are number one it is based on the previous 52 weeks, hence I don't really see that it's better to be number one from jan-dec in that order, than say jun-may in that order. I'd rather be the player who spends a longer time being ranked number one rather than being number one at the end of the year one more time.

Plus being the year end number one suggests that you were they best player for the majority of the year which doesn't have to be true. For instance in 1995 Sampras spent 22 weeks as number 1 and 30 weeks at number 2, he lost his top ranking in April and only gained it back on the 6th November just in time to secure the year end number one. He wasn't the best player in 1995, he just had good timing. I also find it more impressive to hold on to your number one ranking for longer rather than lose it and happen to regain it in time for the end of the year. I think Sampras only spent 2 years as constant number 1 (1994 and 1997)

Anyway we don't agree, but I think both players definitley points in their favour, though I think year end number ones are more about timing.

Also don't be so sore about Federer getting the number one ranking in 2009. Nadal had to lose at RG one year and that year he wasn't good enough. Simples. If Federer hadn't won RG and was going for a 15th slam at the US Open, it's quite possible that would have spurred him on more and he'd have won that and snuck the number 1 ranking anyway.

NadalAgassi
10-30-2012, 03:45 PM
Yeah but anytime you are number one it is based on the previous 52 weeks, hence I don't really see that it's better to be number one from jan-dec in that order, than say jun-may in that order. I'd rather be the player who spends a longer time being ranked number one rather than being number one at the end of the year one more time.

Plus being the year end number one suggests that you were they best player for the majority of the year which doesn't have to be true. For instance in 1995 Sampras spent 22 weeks as number 1 and 30 weeks at number 2, he lost his top ranking in April and only gained it back on the 6th November just in time to secure the year end number one. He wasn't the best player in 1995, he just had good timing. I also find it more impressive to hold on to your number one ranking for longer rather than lose it and happen to regain it in time for the end of the year. I think Sampras only spent 2 years as constant number 1 (1994 and 1997)

Anyway we don't agree, but I think both players definitley points in their favour, though I think year end number ones are more about timing.

Fair enough. I do see what you are saying. However things being done in the span of a singular year has always been more respected. It is likewise why winning the Grand Slam all in the same year is more respected than Navratilova's 6 in a row but no Calendar Slam in 83-84, Serena's Serena Slam in 2002-2003, why Sampras is never credited for winning 3 slams in a year even though he won 3 in a row from July 93-January 94 in just 6 months, etc...

NadalAgassi
10-30-2012, 03:50 PM
Also don't be so sore about Federer getting the number one ranking in 2009. Nadal had to lose at RG one year and that year he wasn't good enough. Simples. If Federer hadn't won RG and was going for a 15th slam at the US Open, it's quite possible that would have spurred him on more and he'd have won that and snuck the number 1 ranking anyway.

I wasnt even referring to the RG result. I was referring to Nadal missing Wimbledon. Nadal was clearly the favorite and likely winner of Wimbledon that year, even after his RG upset. I also see absolutely nothing about Federer's performance at that years Wimbledon that suggests Nadal wouldnt have probably won had he played. A Soderling like miracle was hugely unlikely 2 slams in a row. That alone would have easily cemented Nadal as the #1 for the year. Even had he not won, simply not missing the time he missed, having at all half decent results and collecting some points, would have likely resulted in him ending the year #1. In the end what happened happened, and based on results Federer deserved his year end #1, but Nadal was probably really the best player still.

Likewise in 1999 Sampras was considered by nearly all the Worlds best player by years end (even more of a unaminous consensus than Federer vs Nadal in 2009), despite Agassi's deserved year end #1. As an Agassi fan it pains me to say that, but Sampras with his total ownage of Agassi, including beatdowns in the Wimbledon and ATP World Championship finals, and the fact he was the overwhelming favorite to win the U.S Open that year had he been able to play (he was undefeated all summer), made Agassi even in his career year the #1 with the Sampras asterix.

Nadal missing Wimbledon 09 and Sampras missing U.S Open 99, and some weeks of tennis and other tournaments thereafter, was the principle behind the in the end deserved, but failed to confirm with assuredness of superiority, year end #1 rankings of Agassi and Federer those years.

Hitman
10-30-2012, 04:07 PM
Purely on the numbers, I give it to Sampras. Six is greater than five. Sampras has ended six straight seasons at the world's number player. That is an outstanding accomplishment, considering that it happened during a time when surface variety actually still existed, and there were more specialists of each part of the season. So for Sampras to come out on top each year for six straight years just shows what a superb achievement it is.

Just to put it into perspective, even Nadal in this much homogenized era couldn't attain two straight years as the season ending world number one. The fact that Djokovic did it this year, is a big standout as he trumps Nadal in this way. Yet, it is only two straight years. Sampras did it for six straight years, and I believe that it is this the chasing of this record that killed the fire within Pete. It ended his career.

Federer with five years is simply remarkable also, and taking nothing from the fact that he did dominate more, but in simply math terms 6 trumps 5.

10is
10-30-2012, 04:29 PM
Year end #1 just indicates who won the maximum ranking points in a calendar year. IMO, it is overrated just like a CYGS as against 4 slams in a row. Total weeks at #1 and consecutive weeks at #1 are definitely more meaningful than counting how many times you happened to be #1 on Dec 31 !.

Well said!

smoledman
10-30-2012, 04:33 PM
There are 4 important #1 ranking records

Total weeks at #1
Consecutive weeks at #1
Total YE #1 finishes
Consecutive YE #1 finishes

Sampras has the 2 YE#1 records, Fed has the other 2. So how to judge except by comparing slam totals.

RF20Lennon
10-30-2012, 04:36 PM
Both the records are great!! Sampras 6 in a row is fantatic!!! really amazing but fed has the most of all time weeks and the consecutive so I dont know thats a tough pick

Polaris
10-30-2012, 04:44 PM
Year end #1 just indicates who won the maximum ranking points in a calendar year. IMO, it is overrated just like a CYGS as against 4 slams in a row. Total weeks at #1 and consecutive weeks at #1 are definitely more meaningful than counting how many times you happened to be #1 on Dec 31 !.

There is way too much rationality in this post.

Towser83
10-30-2012, 04:52 PM
Fair enough. I do see what you are saying. However things being done in the span of a singular year has always been more respected. It is likewise why winning the Grand Slam all in the same year is more respected than Navratilova's 6 in a row but no Calendar Slam in 83-84, Serena's Serena Slam in 2002-2003, why Sampras is never credited for winning 3 slams in a year even though he won 3 in a row from July 93-January 94 in just 6 months, etc...

Yeah I know it is looked at that way by a lot of people but I think Serena's 4 in a row is just as good as a caledar slam really (the only thing that could be less impressive is maybe less pressure doing it over 2 years but still a lot of pressure to hold all 4, so that's a minor issue) Navratilova's 6 in a row is an insane achievement that I hold higher than a calendar slam, but I know it's a prestige thing. But I think the acual achievemnt is greater, despite looking not quite as tidy as a calendar slam. Sampras is also unlucky in this as 3 in a 12 month period is as good as 3 in a calendar year really, it just doesn't look as good.

I wasnt even referring to the RG result. I was referring to Nadal missing Wimbledon. Nadal was clearly the favorite and likely winner of Wimbledon that year, even after his RG upset. I also see absolutely nothing about Federer's performance at that years Wimbledon that suggests Nadal wouldnt have probably won had he played. A Soderling like miracle was hugely unlikely 2 slams in a row. That alone would have easily cemented Nadal as the #1 for the year. Even had he not won, simply not missing the time he missed, having at all half decent results and collecting some points, would have likely resulted in him ending the year #1. In the end what happened happened, and based on results Federer deserved his year end #1, but Nadal was probably really the best player still.

Likewise in 1999 Sampras was considered by nearly all the Worlds best player by years end (even more of a unaminous consensus than Federer vs Nadal in 2009), despite Agassi's deserved year end #1. As an Agassi fan it pains me to say that, but Sampras with his total ownage of Agassi, including beatdowns in the Wimbledon and ATP World Championship finals, and the fact he was the overwhelming favorite to win the U.S Open that year had he been able to play (he was undefeated all summer), made Agassi even in his career year the #1 with the Sampras asterix.

Nadal missing Wimbledon 09 and Sampras missing U.S Open 99, and some weeks of tennis and other tournaments thereafter, was the principle behind the in the end deserved, but failed to confirm with assuredness of superiority, year end #1 rankings of Agassi and Federer those years.

The thing is nadal has almost always struggled at Wimbledon in some way. 5 setters in 2006, 2007, 2010 and 2012 before the final to lesser ranked players. In 2008 he was great and then still almost blew it to a clearly deflated Federer (considering his RG result and his results in general) Even in 2010 with no Federer or Djokovic to face he had to come back and win in 5 vs Petzschner and Haass. So assuming he did still lose at RG that year I don't know that he could have picked himself up and won Wimbledon. Any 5 set match might have turned against him like vs Rosol this year and if he did make the final vs Fed, I would give Fed a better shot against Nadal than in 2008 when he only lost 9-7 in the 5th. I don't think Fed played well in the final vs Roddick, but I actually think it had something to do with Fed being huge favourite and Roddick playing very well that day and just the dynamic of their matchup that day.

But I do agree if nadal had played Wimbledon he might have ended up with enough points to grab number one. Can't really work out the matsh off hand because I don't remember the points situation.

merlinpinpin
10-31-2012, 01:14 AM
But I do agree if nadal had played Wimbledon he might have ended up with enough points to grab number one. Can't really work out the matsh off hand because I don't remember the points situation.

He needed a win for that, a final wouldn't have been enough. So we're clearly in the realm of fantasyland, here. Not saying he couldn't have done it, but imagining he *would* have won when he didn't even play is more of a stretch that imagining calendar grand slams for Federer in 2006, 2007, and 2009... ;)