Greater Wimbledon Champion - Fed vs Sampras?

[jg153040]

It's really hard to say - but I'll go Sampras. I'll take efficiency when it comes to the same # of titles. Yes Sampras could have had more losses...if he kept playing into his later years.

But really who cares, they're both kings.

Yeah, they are both kings. But come on, even you would rather have 2 extra runner up trophies at home in your cabinet, than 0.

This has some value. If Fed has a party and they drink form his 7 cups, Fed can still offer cookies on two plates, Pete can't do anything. So, more = better.

 

[jg153040]

Federer ahead of Sampras at Wimbledon for the very same reason why Nadal is ahead of Djokovic at Wimbledon.

Sampras ahead of Federer at US Open for same reason also.

Yeah, sounds about right. But Fed's 5 consecutive USO's is one of the most amazing feats in tennis. There was an article how tough that is and why nobody comes close.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Yeah, sounds about right. But Fed's 5 consecutive USO's is one of the most amazing feats in tennis. There was an article how tough that is and why nobody comes close.

Yes, he has those five in a row. But Sampras beats him in longevity then, by winning in teens, 20s and 30s. That kind of speaks volumes of how Sampras faced many different eras of players to win his trophies.

So, to be fair to them, Sampras should get the rightful nod at US Open over Federer, since he took home more silverware. If Federer gets another RU trophy, I will look at this again, but for now Pete just edges Fed there. And Connors edges Pete.

 

[NatF]

Exactly. I was a big Becker fan and I am first to admit that I don't remember any great performance from Becker in Wimbledon after losing to Stich in 1991. (Except maybe beating Agassi after being down 2-6, 1-4 in 95 SF but only after discarding traditional grass court tennis and taking Agassi head on in baseline game) Many people, like 90s Clay, very questionably call Becker great rival of Pete Sampras on grass but Becker was all spent before they started meeting in Wimbledon. Even before meeting Sampras, Becker had lost to Agassi in conditions tailor made for a grass court great to whip a baseliner (fast grass, wet conditions). Yes if Sampras would have played Becker/Edberg before 92 it would have been a serious grass court competition for him.

Calling Goran has a big rival is also not true. He had great game for grass but we all know what a nut case he was. From 1990 his record at Wimbledon was SF, 2R, F, 3R, F, SF, QF, 2R, F, 4R, 1R & W. He even lost (kind of forfeited actually) to Leander Paes after leading 2-0 on GRASS, in a Davis Cup match, losing the last set 6-1.

And then there are people who say titles are all that counts. So a Michael Stich is equal to Goran as far as Wimbledon is concerned ... Right ??? Come on, have some sanity here. Sampras was one of the all time great at wimbledon. But Federer has surprassed him with 7 Wins and 2 runners up, both times losing in the 5th set to players who will be featured in all time great conversations 10 years from now.

This post needs to be book marked.

 

[kandamrgam]

1.Because W is not everything on grass. It's the most important, but I think other tournaments have some importance. When we talk about clay goat, we don't just focus on the FO. We also admire Rafa's streaks.

2.We need to look when Sampras retired. Fed's win rate is skewed, cuz he is past his prime. So, we need to use Fed's age at the same age Pete retired. So, Fed wins there.

3.I meant losing less sets in their careers. So, that is dominance too.

If we use their grass stats, Fed leads by some margins. But, if we go by W only, then they are very close, I agree. I'm very simple, I think 2 extra finals is enough to give Fed a slight edge. Not to mention, Fed won 5 in a row.

I mean why wouldn't anyone want to have 2 extra runner up trophies? I mean silver medal is not gold, but silver is better than nothin, yes?

By the same logic, Pete is better at USO too. Same situation, 2 extra runner ups.

1. ???? So if a question is "who is the best at Australian Open?" you would come up with "you should count the entire HC since AO is not the only one played on HC" ? Why is it not a standalone question that who was better at Wimbledon? The very q is not about grass goat. It was about Wimbledon!

2. Ok so the sample size you're talking about is "entire career", right? Kind of about 14 years for both that way. Fair enough. As I said between Sampras and Federer it all comes down to how many years you would consider. 7 years, Fed wins. 8 years Sampras wins. 9 Years Sampras wins. 10 years Fed wins. 14 years Fed wins. Choose your pick.

But you cannot say, "choose the same age". Different players peak differently. Best same number of period is a better metric.

3. OK.

4. Because runner-ups aren't special. The same way SFs aren't special. The fact that F > 1R doesn't negate the fact that 1R+F < SF+SF. Win% matters more.

 

[kandamrgam]

Federer ahead of Sampras at Wimbledon for the very same reason why Nadal is ahead of Djokovic at Wimbledon.

Sampras ahead of Federer at US Open for same reason also.

Fair enough, as an opinion. For me win % > F. Hence Djokovic in Wimbledon > Nadal in Wimbledon as far as achievements go. As a grass player I still rate Nadal slightly higher.

 

[jg153040]

1. ???? So if a question is "who is the best at Australian Open?" you would come up with "you should count the entire HC since AO is not the only one played on HC" ? Why is it not a standalone question that who was better at Wimbledon? The very q is not about grass goat. It was about Wimbledon!

2. Ok so the sample size you're talking about is "entire career", right? Kind of about 14 years for both that way. Fair enough. As I said between Sampras and Federer it all comes down to how many years you would consider. 7 years, Fed wins. 8 years Sampras wins. 9 Years Sampras wins. 10 years Fed wins. 14 years Fed wins. Choose your pick.

But you cannot say, "choose the same age". Different players peak differently. Best same number of period is a better metric.

3. OK.

4. Because runner-ups aren't special. The same way SFs aren't special. The fact that F > 1R doesn't negate the fact that 1R+F < SF+SF. Win% matters more.

1.You have a point here. I just don't see why we only argue about subsets when everything matters. Like arguing Karlovic has better serve on grass than Pete. So, what, Pete is better overall. For some reason people find little things that some player is better and think those things are more important than the big picture.

2.Yeah, it depends how you pick. When you retire early you protect your win%, but you don't win anything either. If you play, you sacrifice your win %, but you win more. But the thing is that it's not like Pete has chosen to retire. He was forced cuz he wasn't good enough. So, you would have a point if he was still dominating grass but was bored and retired.

4.Runner ups are a lot more special than no runner ups, that's for sure.

 

[kandamrgam]

1.You have a point here. I just don't see why we only argue about subsets when everything matters. Like arguing Karlovic has better serve on grass than Pete. So, what, Pete is better overall. For some reason people find little things that some player is better and think those things are more important than the big picture.

2.Yeah, it depends how you pick. When you retire early you protect your win%, but you don't win anything either. If you play, you sacrifice your win %, but you win more. But the thing is that it's not like Pete has chosen to retire. He was forced cuz he wasn't good enough. So, you would have a point if he was still dominating grass but was bored and retired.

4.Runner ups are a lot more special than no runner ups, that's for sure.

4. Not necessarily. Which is what I pointed with an example. You dont seem to reply.

 

[jg153040]

Fair enough, as an opinion. For me win % > F. Hence Djokovic in Wimbledon > Nadal in Wimbledon as far as achievements go. As a grass player I still rate Nadal slightly higher.

Ok, fair enough. Your logic is consistent, so this is ok. But usually most posters here use different kind of logic when it suits them.

So, ok I don't agree with this, but I can accept it, because it's consistent. You value win % over achievements.

But we need the same number of matches played, otherwise win % is skewed.
Of course it's easier to have better win % with less matches, since you won't be penalized for not playing past your prime.

So, with Fed vs Pete, let's use the age when they both had the same number of matches played. This is what I mean by sample size. Pete wasn't good enough, so there is no way he could have sustained his winrate.

 

[jg153040]

4. Not necessarily. Which is what I pointed with an example. You dont seem to reply.

It's fine, you value win % over runner ups. I can accept that. I mean win % can be used as an achievement too, I'm fine with that. It's a matter of opinion what is more impressive.

But, I advocate that we use win % correctly. Using the same number of matches played. Because guys who retire early will protect their win %.

So, we need to check how many matches Pete played at W when he retired and use the same amount of matches with Fed. And here Fed leads.

I mean Delpo has 100% win rate in GS finals. And why don't we use it? Because it's not the same sample size.

 

[Bukmeikara]

4. Because runner-ups aren't special. The same way SFs aren't special. The fact that F > 1R doesn't negate the fact that 1R+F < SF+SF. Win% matters more.

Who said that? And why 1R+F and not 4th+F?!! Even with a first round, do you actually believe that someone like Grosjean with two SF has done better than Nalbandian or Berdych. Do you think that losing twise before the final is even comparable with the chill of you walking on Center court and having a chance to win the whole thing. Manny people dont follow tennis but they often make an exception and watch the finals of the big tournaments esp. something like the Wimbledon final. You can make a case that 3SF are equal to a F but nothing less ..... Do you even knew that Grosjean had two SF at Wimbledon?

 

[kandamrgam]

Ok, fair enough. Your logic is consistent, so this is ok. But usually most posters here use different kind of logic when it suits them.

So, ok I don't agree with this, but I can accept it, because it's consistent. You value win % over achievements.

But we need the same number of matches played, otherwise win % is skewed.
Of course it's easier to have better win % with less matches, since you won't be penalized for not playing past your prime.

So, with Fed vs Pete, let's use the age when they both had the same number of matches played. This is what I mean by sample size. Pete wasn't good enough, so there is no way he could have sustained his winrate.

It's fine, you value win % over runner ups. I can accept that. I mean win % can be used as an achievement too, I'm fine with that. It's a matter of opinion what is more impressive.

But, I advocate that we use win % correctly. Using the same number of matches played. Because guys who retire early will protect their win %.

So, we need to check how many matches Pete played at W when he retired and use the same amount of matches with Fed. And here Fed leads.

I mean Delpo has 100% win rate in GS finals. And why don't we use it? Because it's not the same sample size.

I get your point. Sampras or Federer didnt miss WCs - during so and so period. Sampras did play 14 years at Wimbledon. As I said choose your period, conveniently

 

[mental midget]

how anyone can brush aside a wimbledon runner-up trophy as insignificant is absolutely beyond me. grasping at straws.

 

[kandamrgam]

Who said that? And why 1R+F and not 4th+F?!! Even with a first round, do you actually believe that someone like Grosjean with two SF has done better than Nalbandian or Berdych. Do you think that losing twise before the final is even comparable with the chill of you walking on Center court and having a chance to win the whole thing. Manny people dont follow tennis but they often make an exception and watch the finals of the big tournaments esp. something like the Wimbledon final. You can make a case that 3SF are equal to a F but nothing less ..... Do you even knew that Grosjean had two SF at Wimbledon?

1. I said. I hope nobody has excavated evidences as to who is better at WC from ocean yet and we are all expressing our opinions.

2. To drive a point home. To make the intent more clear. Extreme examples help.

3. Given Grosjean ever played only twice in his career and Nalbandian or Berdych has nothing else to show off other than a final, yes.

4. Yes, comparable. Not as great though.

5. Why?

6. I didn't. Relevance here?

 

[jg153040]

I get your point. Sampras or Federer didnt miss WCs - during so and so period. Sampras did play 14 years at Wimbledon. As I said choose your period, conveniently

There is no convenience. We choose the same sample size. This is how it should be done. But, anyway, the difference in win % is so small, that's not significant in any case.

I mean 2 runner up trophies is much bigger disparity, so Fed owns Sampras in achievements much more than Pete owns him in win%.

What is the difference between win%? Is it even 1%? It's insignificant compared to two runner ups.

Look, they are very close. Whoever comes on top, it's really a tiny difference. I think 5 in a row and 2 finals beats that insignificant win %. Not to mention Fed won their match, when Sampras was closer to his best than Fed was.

 

[kandamrgam]

There is no convenience. We choose the same sample size. This is how it should be done. But, anyway, the difference in win % is so small, that's not significant in any case.

I mean 2 runner up trophies is much bigger disparity, so Fed owns Sampras in achievements much more than Pete owns him in win%.

What is the difference between win%? Is it even 1%? It's insignificant compared to two runner ups.

Look, they are very close. Whoever comes on top, it's really a tiny difference. I think 5 in a row and 2 finals beats that insignificant win %. Not to mention Fed won their match, when Sampras was closer to his best than Fed was.

1. There is still convenience even if you are considering the same number of years. Convenient sample size tilts it in one's favour even if the size is same for both players.

2. Fair enough if you consider runner-ups themselves as special.

3. h2h doesn't matter honestly. And it is just one match!! A guy who talks about sample size has no right to consider that, ok?

 

[jg153040]

1. There is still convenience even if you are considering the same number of years. Convenient sample size tilts it in one's favour even if the size is same for both players.

2. Fair enough if you consider runner-ups themselves as special.

3. h2h doesn't matter honestly. And it is just one match!! A guy who talks about sample size has no right to consider that, ok?

I really stopped caring right now. They are both great champions and I loved watching both of them.

Although, Fed's style looks a bit cooler . But Sampras had that dominating feel. Just power and two shots and the point is gone, it looked like opponents didn't have any control. Fed could hurt you with genius and variety, but Pete could hurt you so much with just one shot. It's great how Pete looked so casual at the net. Like he is practicing.

 

[Vish13]

Yes, Stich = Goran as far as Wimbledon is concerned. Some may say Stich is greater because Goran won his only Wimbledon because of Federer.

Ok ... Got it ... Roger Federer @ French Open = Michael Chang

 

[NatF]

Ok ... Got it ... Roger Federer @ French Open = Michael Chang

I've heard him or 90's clay say that before....

 

[Mustard]

Yes, Stich = Goran as far as Wimbledon is concerned. Some may say Stich is greater because Goran won his only Wimbledon because of Federer.

Because of Federer? :-?

Ivanisevic has not only beaten Sampras at Wimbledon (in 1992), but came close to beating Sampras at Wimbledon on two other occasions (1995 and 1998 ).

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Because of Federer? :-?

Ivanisevic has not only beaten Sampras at Wimbledon (in 1992), but came close to beating Sampras at Wimbledon on two other occasions (1995 and 1998 ).

Should have had him in 98 to be honest. I was really sad after that one, cause I thought he lost his chance.

 

[Mustard]

Should have had him in 98 to be honest. I was really sad after that one, cause I thought he lost his chance.

Yes. In the 1998 Wimbledon final, Ivanisevic failed on set points that would have given him a 2-set lead. He also played a disappointing fifth set, after his excellent fourth set. In their 1995 Wimbledon semi final, Ivanisevic lost all the crucial points in a 5 set loss. At 2001 Wimbledon, Ivanisevic was back playing great tennis, while Sampras was clearly below his usual level. I'd have fancied Goran's chances, to be honest. Although there's never any guarantees that Goran wouldn't have a mental meltdown and lose easily, he seemed very quietly determined at 2001 Wimbledon, like he had a sense of destiny.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Yes. In the 1998 Wimbledon final, Ivanisevic failed on set points that would have given him a 2-set lead. He also played a disappointing fifth set, after his excellent fourth set. In their 1995 Wimbledon semi final, Ivanisevic lost all the crucial points in a 5 set loss. At 2001 Wimbledon, Ivanisevic was back playing great tennis, while Sampras was clearly below his usual level. I'd have fancied Goran's chances, to be honest. Although there's never any guarantees that Goran wouldn't have a mental meltdown and lose easily, he seemed very quietly determined at 2001 Wimbledon, like he had a sense of destiny.

I saw that match live with my school friends. When we knew Sampras and Ivanisevic were going to play, we just knew where we had to be...and certainly wasn't math class.

 

[Flint]

You guys would probably like this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYa1bSRoOzs

 

[Prabhanjan]

I vaguely remember Goran saying that he had too much of respect for Pete and Agassi and that in turn sometimes stopped him playing well on the big points. He said in that interview how he thought he would never be ranked No.1 because of these two guys.

The main advantage of extra finals according to me is this. It is possible to make a case that if Goran was not facing all time greats like Agassi and Sampras in the finals, he could have possibly won at least one of those lost three finals. Can one make such a case for Stich? One can't really say even if there were weaker opponents in the final, Stich could have possibly won more Wimbledons since he was not in the finals in the first place. Same is the case of Pete vs Roger. It is easy to see that Fed could have almost certainly won one of the finals in 08/14 if the finalists were Shutler/Dimitrov. Can you make such a case for Sampras? And you can't simply wish off this as fiction. Look at Borg! People/experts some how forgive him for losing the 3 USO finals to Connors/McEnroe and it is not as bigger blemish as, say, Sampras not even reaching FO finals.

 

[helloworld]

You guys would probably like this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYa1bSRoOzs

Wow, look at the explosiveness of Sampras' serve even in slow motion.