GS Titles and GS Surfaces

[eldanger25]

Gary Duane had an interesting list suggestion re: slam titles and finals distribution by single and multiple surfaces in a now-deleted thread, and I thought I'd follow it up. This is meant to be a conversation starter, though I'll have some thoughts as well at the end - note that I went by quantity rather than conversion rate - so Federer's 9 hard court slams are counted rather than his 7 Wimbledons despite a better conversion rate at the latter - partly because I think it deals with the surface split changes at the slams across the Open Era in a simpler fashion, and partly because the alternative would be more of a pain in the *** to look up.

If somebody wants to work up a similar breakdown by slams (rather than by slam surfaces), I'd be interested to see it - maybe I'll tackle it one day as well.

Anyway, here goes - ties are listed in chronological order of achievement:

Slam Titles on All Surfaces, Open Era - minimum of 6

Federer, 17
Sampras, 14
Nadal, 14
Borg, 11
Connors, 8
Lendl, 8
Agassi, 8
McEnroe, 7
Wilander, 7
Djokovic, 7
Edberg, 6
Becker, 6

Slam Titles on Two Most Successful Surfaces, Open Era

Federer, 16 (9 hard, 7 grass)
Sampras, 14 (7 grass, 7 hard)
Nadal, 12 (9 clay, 3 hard)
Borg, 11 (6 clay, 5 grass)
Lendl, 8 (5 hard, 3 clay)
Connors, 7 (4 grass, 3 hard)
Agassi, 7 (6 hard, 1 clay)
McEnroe, 7 (4 hard, 3 grass)
Djokovic, 7 (5 hard, 2 grass)
Edberg, 6 (4 grass, 2 hard)
Becker, 6 (3 grass, 3 hard)
Wilander, 5 (3 clay, 2 hard)

Slam Titles on Most Successful Surface, Open Era

Federer, 9 (hard)
Nadal, 9 (clay)
Sampras, 7 (hard)
Borg, 6 (clay)
Agassi, 6 (hard)
Lendl, 5 (hard)
Djokovic, 5 (hard)
Connors, 4 (grass)
McEnroe, 4 (hard)
Edberg, 4 (grass)
Becker, 3 (grass)
Wilander, 3 (clay)

Slam Titles on Least Successful Surface, Open Era

Nadal, 2 (grass)
Wilander, 2 (grass)
Federer, 1 (clay)
Connors, 1 (clay)
Agassi, 1 (grass)
Sampras, 0 (clay)
Borg, 0 (hard)
Lendl, 0 (grass)
McEnroe, 0 (clay)
Djokovic, 0 (clay)
Edberg, 0 (clay)
Becker, 0 (clay)

Slam Titles on Two Least Successful Surfaces, Open Era

Federer, 8 (7 grass, 1 clay)
Sampras, 7 (7 grass, 0 clay)
Nadal, 5 (3 hard, 2 grass)
Borg, 5 (5 grass, 0 hard)
Connors, 4 (3 hard, 1 clay)
Wilander, 4 (2 hard, 2 grass)
Lendl, 3 (3 clay, 0 grass)
McEnroe, 3 (3 grass, 0 clay)
Becker, 3 (3 hard, 0 clay)
Agassi, 2 (1 grass, 1 clay)
Djokovic, 2 (2 grass, 0 clay)
Edberg, 2 (2 hard, 0 clay)

Slam finals by surface coming next post.

 

[eldanger25]

Slam Finals on All Surfaces, Open Era

Federer, 25
Nadal, 20
Lendl, 19
Sampras, 18
Borg, 16
Connors, 15
Agassi, 15
Djokovic, 14
McEnroe, 11
Wilander, 11
Edberg, 11
Becker, 10

Slam Finals on Two Most Successful Surfaces, Open Era

Federer, 20 (11 hard, 9 grass)
Sampras, 18 (11 hard, 7 grass)
Lendl, 16 (11 hard, 5 clay)
Nadal, 15 (9 clay, 6 hard)
Borg, 13 (7 clay, 6 grass)
Agassi, 13 (10 hard, 3 clay)
Connors, 12 (9 grass, 3 hard)
Djokovic, 12 (9 hard, 3 grass)
McEnroe, 10 (5 hard, 5 grass)
Edberg, 10 (5 grass, 5 hard)
Becker, 10 (7 grass, 3 hard)
Wilander, 8 (5 clay, 3 hard)

Slam Finals on Most Successful Surface, Open Era

Federer, 11 (hard)
Sampras, 11 (hard)
Lendl, 11 (hard)
Agassi, 10 (hard)
Connors, 9 (grass)
Nadal, 9 (clay)
Djokovic, 9 (hard)
Borg, 7 (clay)
Becker, 7 (grass)
McEnroe, 5 (hard)
Wilander, 5 (clay)
Edberg, 5 (grass)

Slam Finals on Least Successful Surface, Open Era

Federer, 5 (clay)
Nadal, 5 (grass)
Connors, 3 (clay)
Borg, 3 (hard)
Lendl, 3 (grass)
Wilander, 3 (grass)
Agassi, 2 (grass)
Djokovic, 2 (clay)
McEnroe, 1 (clay)
Edberg, 1 (clay)
Sampras, 0 (clay)
Becker, 0 (clay)

Slam Finals on Two Least Successful Surfaces, Open Era

Federer, 14 (9 grass, 5 clay)
Nadal, 11 (6 hard, 5 grass)
Borg, 9 (6 grass, 3 hard)
Lendl, 8 (5 clay, 3 grass)
Sampras, 7 (7 grass, 0 clay)
Connors, 6 (3 hard, 3 clay)
McEnroe, 6 (5 grass, 1 clay)
Wilander, 6 (3 grass, 3 hard)
Edberg, 6 (5 hard, 1 clay)
Agassi, 5 (3 clay, 2 grass)
Djokovic, 5 (3 grass, 2 clay)
Becker, 3 (3 hard, 0 clay)

Might drop in title fight conversion rate per GS surface as well.

 

[eldanger25]

Slam Finals Winning Percentage on All Surfaces, Open Era

Sampras, 78 percent combined (14-4)
100 percent on grass (7-0)
64 percent on hard (7-4)
N/A on clay (0-0)

Nadal, 70 percent combined (14-6)
100 percent on clay (9-0)
50 percent on hard (3-3)
40 percent on grass (2-3)

Borg, 69 percent combined (11-5)
86 percent on clay (6-1)
83 percent on grass (5-1)
0 percent on hard (0-3)

Federer, 68 percent combined (17-8 )
82 percent on hard (9-2)
78 percent on grass (7-2)
20 percent on clay (1-4)

McEnroe, 64 percent combined (7-4)
80 percent on hard (4-1)
60 percent on grass (3-2)
0 percent on clay (0-1)

Wilander, 64 percent combined (7-4)
67 percent on hard (2-1)
67 percent on grass (2-1)
60 percent on clay (3-2)

Becker, 60 percent combined (6-4)
100 percent on hard (3-0)
43 percent on grass (3-4)
N/A on clay (0-0)

Edberg, 55 percent combined (6-5)
80 percent on grass (4-1)
40 percent on hard (2-3)
0 percent on clay (0-1)

Connors, 53 percent combined (8-7)
100 percent on hard (3-0)
44 percent on grass (4-5)
33 percent on clay (1-2)

Agassi, 53 percent combined (8-7)
60 percent on hard (6-4)
50 percent on grass (1-1)
33 percent on clay (1-2)

Djokovic, 50 percent combined (7-7)
67 percent on grass (2-1)
56 percent on hard (5-4)
0 percent on clay (0-2)

Lendl, 42 percent combined (8-11)
60 percent on clay (3-2)
45 percent on hard (5-6)
0 percent on grass (0-3)

 

[eldanger25]

And for the hell of it, title fight winning percentage when facing a fellow Open Era slam winner:

GS Title Round Winning Percentage, All Surfaces

Sampras, 73 percent (11-4)

4-1 v. Agassi
2-0 v. Ivanisevic
1-0 v. Becker
1-0 v. Courier
1-0 v. Rafter
1-0 v. Chang
1-0 v. Moya
0-1 v. Edberg
0-1 v. Hewitt
0-1 v. Safin

Borg, 67 percent (10-5)

2-2 v. Connors
2-0 v. Vilas
1-0 v. Lendl
1-3 v. McEnroe
1-0 v. Nastase
1-0 v. Orantes
1-0 v. Gerulaitis
1-0 v. Tanner

Nadal, 63 percent (10-6)

6-2 v. Federer
4-3 v. Djokovic
0-1 v. Wawrinka

Federer, 62 percent (13-8 )

4-0 v. Roddick
3-0 v. Murray
2-6 v. Nadal
1-0 v. Agassi
1-1 v. Djokovic
1-0 v. Hewitt
1-0 v. Safin
0-1 v. Del Potro

McEnroe, 60 percent (6-4)

3-1 v. Borg
1-1 v. Connors
1-2 v. Lendl
1-0 v. Gerulaitis

Wilander, 56 percent (5-4)

3-2 v. Lendl
1-0 v. Vilas
1-0 v. Cash
0-1 v. Edberg
0-1 v. Noah

Becker, 56 percent (5-4)

3-0 v. Lendl
1-2 v. Edberg
1-0 v. Chang
0-1 v. Sampras
0-1 v. Stich

Edberg, 55 percent (6-5)

2-1 v. Becker
1-0 v. Sampras
1-0 v. Wilander
1-2 v. Courier
1-0 v. Cash
0-1 v. Lendl
0-1 v. Chang

Connors, 50 percent (7-7)
2-2 v. Borg
2-0 v. Lendl
2-0 v. Rosewall
1-1 v. McEnroe
0-1 v. Newcombe
0-1 v. Ashe
0-1 v. Vilas
0-1 v. Orantes

Djokovic, 46 percent (6-7)
3-4 v. Nadal
2-2 v. Murray
1-1 v. Federer

Agassi, 36 percent (4-7)

1-4 v. Sampras
1-0 v. Kafelnikov
1-0 v. Ivanisevic
1-0 v. Stich
0-1 v. Federer
0-1 v. Courier
0-1 v. Gomez

Lendl, 31 percent (5-11)
2-1 v. McEnroe
2-3 v. Wilander
1-0 v. Edberg
0-1 v. Borg
0-2 v. Connors
0-3 v. Becker
0-1 v. Cash

 

[eldanger25]

And title fights versus fellow slam winners, overall

Federer, 21 (13-8 )
Nadal, 16 (10-6)
Lendl, 16 (5-11)
Sampras, 15 (11-4)
Borg, 15 (10-5)
Connors, 14 (7-7)
Djokovic, 13 (6-7)
Agassi, 11 (4-7)
Edberg, 11 (6-5)
McEnroe, 10 (6-4)
Wilander, 9 (5-4)
Becker, 9 (5-4)

 

[TMF]

Very interesting

Thanks for the effort/time.

A great stats to refer to in the future.

Your stats have something in common with mine...Federer ranked at the top on most of the list.

 

[Gary Duane]

Slam Finals Winning Percentage on All Surfaces, Open Era

Sampras, 78 percent combined (14-4)
100 percent on grass (7-0)
64 percent on hard (7-4)
N/A on clay (0-0)

Nadal, 70 percent combined (14-6)
100 percent on clay (9-0)
50 percent on hard (3-3)
40 percent on grass (2-3)

Borg, 69 percent combined (11-5)
86 percent on clay (6-1)
83 percent on grass (5-1)
0 percent on hard (0-3)

Federer, 68 percent combined (17-8 )
82 percent on hard (9-2)
78 percent on grass (7-2)
20 percent on clay (1-4)

McEnroe, 64 percent combined (7-4)
80 percent on hard (4-1)
60 percent on grass (3-2)
0 percent on clay (0-1)

Wilander, 64 percent combined (7-4)
67 percent on hard (2-1)
67 percent on grass (2-1)
60 percent on clay (3-2)

Becker, 60 percent combined (6-4)
100 percent on hard (3-0)
43 percent on grass (3-4)

Edberg, 55 percent combined (6-5)
80 percent on grass (4-1)
40 percent on hard (2-3)
0 percent on clay (0-1)

Connors, 53 percent combined (8-7)
100 percent on hard (3-0)
44 percent on grass (4-5)
33 percent on clay (1-2)

Agassi, 53 percent combined (8-7)
60 percent on hard (6-4)
50 percent on grass (1-1)
33 percent on clay (1-2)

Djokovic, 50 percent combined (7-7)
67 percent on grass (2-1)
56 percent on hard (5-4)
0 percent on clay (0-2)

Lendl, 42 percent combined (8-11)
60 percent on clay (3-2)
45 percent on hard (5-6)
0 percent on grass (0-3)

You might want to add:

N/A on clay (0-0), for Becker. I don't think he ever got farther than SFs at the FO.

To me the interesting thing is that pretty much the same players end up at the top in all the lists.

 

[Russeljones]

You might want to add:

N/A on clay (0-0), for Becker. I don't think he ever got farther than SFs at the FO.

To me the interesting thing is that pretty much the same players end up at the top in all the lists.

Yes, I appreciate the effort this took but I am not sure about the value of the "findings".

 

[Gary Duane]

Yes, I appreciate the effort this took but I am not sure about the value of the "findings".

The value is that he is doing something besides starting another GOAT debate.

 

[Russeljones]

The value is that he is doing something besides starting another GOAT debate.

That's the value of the thread itself and I am thankful for that

 

[eldanger25]

Yes, I appreciate the effort this took but I am not sure about the value of the "findings".

Not sure of it myself either - on some level, I just wanted to toss some stuff out there, maybe facilitate some discussion.

I have 2-3 thoughts on the list myself, and will add them later this evening.

 

[eldanger25]

You might want to add:

N/A on clay (0-0), for Becker. I don't think he ever got farther than SFs at the FO.

To me the interesting thing is that pretty much the same players end up at the top in all the lists.

Thanks for the catch - I made the edit.

 

[jg153040]

What impresses me about Nadal is 11 GS finals off clay.

But top guys have protected rankings this era. Sampras had to play top guys early. I think that is the reason why top guys are more consistent. And I see Sampras in a different light now. I can safely put him above Nadal.

 

[NatF]

What impresses me about Nadal is 11 GS finals off clay.

But top guys have protected rankings this era. Sampras had to play top guys early. I think that is the reason why top guys are more consistent. And I see Sampras in a different light now. I can safely put him above Nadal.

I'm not sure he did. He had the possibility of facing top 16-32 players early but I'm not sure how often he did it.

 

[jg153040]

I'm not sure he did. He had the possibility of facing top 16-32 players early but I'm not sure how often he did it.

Good point. We would need to know how often that happened early, yes.

If it didn't happen often, it's irrelevant yes.

 

[eldanger25]

A few thoughts on this as a starting point:

1. The Big Four of the Open Era - Federer, Nadal, Sampras, Borg - really took their chances when they came on championship Sundays (or Mondays) - all 68 percent or above title fight conversion rates. Not a surprise to see other "big match" guys at 60 percent or above - Becker, Wilander, Mac.

2. Interesting to me how Agassi won half his slams against guys who never won GS titles at any point in their careers - he had a tough record against other slam-tough finalists (4-7, above only Lendl's 5-11 percentage-wise). Conversely, additional respect for Edberg, who won all his GS titles facing somebody in the final who also won a GS in their career (including guys like Becker at Wimbledon, Sampras at the Open, and Wilander in Australia).

(This is just the start of strength of schedule stuff - could be worth it to look at how many slams the average title round opponent for each of these guys won in their careers, as well as the average slams the opponent had won at the time of the match, etc. Of course all this is flawed given the appearance rate at GS events for the 70s guys, but it is what it is - still could be interesting.

3. Interesting to me that only Sampras and Becker failed to make even a slam final on their weakest surface (clay). Conversely, you have to be impressed that Connors and Borg are tied for 3rd in that metric, given that Borg only played 4 HC slams in his career (and made 3 finals), and Connors didn't go to RG at all during his 5 year peak. Of course Federer and Nadal each making 5 finals on his least successful surface is tremendous.

4. Pretty wild to me that as we approach 50 years of Open Era tennis, and 40 years of 3 surface GS events, you can still count on one hand the number of guys who won slams on all three surfaces (Fed/Nadal/Connors/Agassi/Wilander).

5. Federer really is king of the Open Era.

 

[jg153040]

A few thoughts on this as a starting point:

1. The Big Four of the Open Era - Federer, Nadal, Sampras, Borg - really took their chances when they came on championship Sundays (or Mondays) - all 68 percent or above title fight conversion rates. Not a surprise to see other "big match" guys at 60 percent or above - Becker, Wilander, Mac.

2. Interesting to me how Agassi won half his slam finals against guys who never won GS titles at any point in their careers - he had a tough record against other slam-tough finalists. Conversely, additional respect for Edberg, who won all his GS titles facing somebody in the final who also won a GS in their career (including guys like Becker at Wimbledon, Sampras at the Open, and Wilander in Australia).

(This is just the start of strength of schedule stuff - could be worth it to look at how many slams the average title round opponent for each of these guys won in their careers, as well as the average slams the opponent had won at the time of the match, etc. Of course all this is flawed given the appearance rate at GS events for the 70s guys, but it is what it is - still could be interesting.

3. Interesting to me that only Sampras and Becker failed to make even a slam final on their weakest surface (clay). Conversely, you have to be impressed that Connors and Borg are tied for 3rd in that metric, given that Borg only played 4 HC slams in his career (and made 3 finals), and Connors didn't go to RG at all during his 5 year peak. Of course Federer and Nadal each making 5 finals on his least successful surface is tremendous.

4. Pretty wild to me that as we approach 50 years of Open Era tennis, and 40 years of 3 surface GS events, you can still count on one hand the number of guys who won slams on all three surfaces (Fed/Nadal/Connors/Agassi/Wilander).

5. Federer really is king of the Open Era.

Yes. I will only like to add, that we should add players who didn't win on all surfaces, but made multiple finals.

It's clear that Djokovic is very competent on clay, he just didn't win RG. So, multiple finalists should be there with winners.

It's not that Sampras didn't win RG. It's that he wasn't competent on the surface. If he won masters and made some RG finals, I would put him with players who won 1 RG title.

 

[helloworld]

A few thoughts on this as a starting point:

1. The Big Four of the Open Era - Federer, Nadal, Sampras, Borg - really took their chances when they came on championship Sundays (or Mondays) - all 68 percent or above title fight conversion rates. Not a surprise to see other "big match" guys at 60 percent or above - Becker, Wilander, Mac.

2. Interesting to me how Agassi won half his slams against guys who never won GS titles at any point in their careers - he had a tough record against other slam-tough finalists (4-7, above only Lendl's 5-11 percentage-wise). Conversely, additional respect for Edberg, who won all his GS titles facing somebody in the final who also won a GS in their career (including guys like Becker at Wimbledon, Sampras at the Open, and Wilander in Australia).

(This is just the start of strength of schedule stuff - could be worth it to look at how many slams the average title round opponent for each of these guys won in their careers, as well as the average slams the opponent had won at the time of the match, etc. Of course all this is flawed given the appearance rate at GS events for the 70s guys, but it is what it is - still could be interesting.

3. Interesting to me that only Sampras and Becker failed to make even a slam final on their weakest surface (clay). Conversely, you have to be impressed that Connors and Borg are tied for 3rd in that metric, given that Borg only played 4 HC slams in his career (and made 3 finals), and Connors didn't go to RG at all during his 5 year peak. Of course Federer and Nadal each making 5 finals on his least successful surface is tremendous.

4. Pretty wild to me that as we approach 50 years of Open Era tennis, and 40 years of 3 surface GS events, you can still count on one hand the number of guys who won slams on all three surfaces (Fed/Nadal/Connors/Agassi/Wilander).

5. Federer really is king of the Open Era.

The king who is a fodder to another all-time great rival? Sounds unconvincing to me.

 

[jg153040]

The king who is a fodder to another all-time great rival? Sounds unconvincing to me.

Wasn't Sampras a fodder to everyone on clay? How can Sampras then qualify?

 

[NatF]

The king who is a fodder to another all-time great rival? Sounds unconvincing to me.

Dry those tears biatch :lol:

@jg; Sampras was definitely 'competent' on clay won Rome and had a stand out performance in the Davis Cup final on clay against good clay courters. Made multiple QF's and SF's losing mostly to great players. His second half of the career on clay was poor but that was mostly motivation IMO.

 

[jg153040]

Dry those tears biatch :lol:

@jg; Sampras was definitely 'competent' on clay won Rome and had a stand out performance in the Davis Cup final on clay against good clay courters. Made multiple QF's and SF's losing mostly to great players. His second half of the career on clay was poor but that was mostly motivation IMO.

I don't agree that Sampras was competent enough to put him in goat discussions.

For goat standard, he wasn't competent.

Nadal and Sampras were too arrogant and that cost them being goat.

Nadal and Toni make fun of grass. Grass not real tennis, no?

Sampras was making fun of clay courters.

Federer actually respects his worse surface and says he has Nadal problem on clay and that he loves clay.

Those guys instead of dismissing clay and crass could have adapted more.

 

[eldanger25]

Yes. I will only like to add, that we should add players who didn't win on all surfaces, but made multiple finals.

It's clear that Djokovic is very competent on clay, he just didn't win RG. So, multiple finalists should be there with winners.

It's not that Sampras didn't win RG. It's that he wasn't competent on the surface. If he won masters and made some RG finals, I would put him with players who won 1 RG title.

Reasonable point, but I wonder about it - Djokovic has pushed Nadal harder than anyone in his career at RG, and deserves appreciation for that. Borg too was stopped only by Connors/Mac on HCs at the Open, and pushed Mac very hard in their 1980/81 finals there.

But what to do about Lendl, for instance, who made 3 slam finals on grass but never won a single set in those championship matches - 0-9 in total sets against Wilander/Becker/Cash? Seems different to me than Novak-Rafa at RG or Borg-Mac at the Open.

 

[eldanger25]

The king who is a fodder to another all-time great rival? Sounds unconvincing to me.

You're right - Nadal going 6-2 against Federer in title fights is serious business. But I still think Nadal needs to get closer to Fed, achievements-wise, to swipe the crown on that basis.

 

[jg153040]

Reasonable point, but I wonder about it - Djokovic has pushed Nadal harder than anyone in his career at RG, and deserves appreciation for that. Borg too was stopped only by Connors/Mac on HCs at the Open, and pushed Mac very hard in their 1980/81 finals there.

But what to do about Lendl, for instance, who made 3 slam finals on grass but never won a single set in those championship matches - 0-9 in total sets against Wilander/Becker/Cash? Seems different to me than Novak-Rafa at RG or Borg-Mac at the Open.

But still, I would give credit to Lendl. I mean 3 finals is still amazing, even if he didn't win a set.

When was Wilander in a final?

 

[eldanger25]

But still, I would give credit to Lendl. I mean 3 finals is still amazing, even if he didn't win a set.

When was Wilander in a final?

Agreed - 3 finals is impressive, he worked hard to improve his grass game.

They played in the 1983 AO final on grass.

 

[Russeljones]

Good point. We would need to know how often that happened early, yes.

If it didn't happen often, it's irrelevant yes.

Listed players he faced in QF or earlier, you can search the players rankings at the time. Sampras has always received unduly harsh criticism here over his draws.

90 USO Sampras (12) played Muster, Lendl, McEnroe and Agassi

93 Wimbledon Sampras (1) played Agassi, Becker and Courier

93 USO Sampras (2) played Chang, Volkov and Pioline

94 AO Sampras (1) played Lendl, Gustafsson, COurier and Martin

94 Wimbledon Sampras (1) played Chang, Martin and Ivanisevic

95 Wimbledon Sampras (2) played Matsuoka, Ivanisevic and Becker

95 USO Sampras (2) played Martin, Black, Courier and Agassi

96 FO Sampras (1) played Bruguera, Martin, Draper, Courier and Kafelnikov

96 USO Sampras (1) played Corretja, Ivanisevic and Chang

97 AO Sampras (1) played Costa, Muster and Moya

97 Wimbledon Sampras (1) played Korda, Becker, Woodbridge and Pioline

98 Wimbledon Sampras (1) played Enqvist, Grosjean, Philippoussis, Henman and Ivanisevic

99 Wimbledon Sampras (1) played Philippoussis, Henman and Agassi

00 Wimbledon Sampras (1) played Bjorkman, Jan-Michael Gambill, Voltchkov and Rafter

02 USO Sampras (17) played Enkqvist (29), Rusedski, Haas, Roddick, Shalken and Agassi.

 

[jg153040]

Agreed - 3 finals is impressive, he worked hard to improve his grass game.

They played in the 1983 AO final on grass.

Thanks. I though I was going crazy, not remembering Wilander in a W final .

I jumped too soon, assuming W is grass. That is ingrained into me.

 

[jg153040]

Listed players he faced in QF or earlier, you can search the players rankings at the time. Sampras has always received unduly harsh criticism here over his draws.

90 USO Sampras (12) played Muster, Lendl, McEnroe and Agassi

93 Wimbledon Sampras (1) played Agassi, Becker and Courier

93 USO Sampras (2) played Chang, Volkov and Pioline

94 AO Sampras (1) played Lendl, Gustafsson, COurier and Martin

94 Wimbledon Sampras (1) played Chang, Martin and Ivanisevic

95 Wimbledon Sampras (2) played Matsuoka, Ivanisevic and Becker

95 USO Sampras (2) played Martin, Black, Courier and Agassi

96 FO Sampras (1) played Bruguera, Martin, Draper, Courier and Kafelnikov

96 USO Sampras (1) played Corretja, Ivanisevic and Chang

97 AO Sampras (1) played Costa, Muster and Moya

97 Wimbledon Sampras (1) played Korda, Becker, Woodbridge and Pioline

98 Wimbledon Sampras (1) played Enqvist, Grosjean, Philippoussis, Henman and Ivanisevic

99 Wimbledon Sampras (1) played Philippoussis, Henman and Agassi

00 Wimbledon Sampras (1) played Bjorkman, Jan-Michael Gambill, Voltchkov and Rafter

02 USO Sampras (17) played Enkqvist (29), Rusedski, Haas, Roddick, Shalken and Agassi.

Thanks. I'm too lazy to search, it's not that big deal to me. So, this is a good reason why maybe players today are more consistent and we can put Sampras above Nadal.

But, doesn't this also mean if he beat those guys early, that he didn't need to beat them in later stages? So, he had it that much easier in finals, where the pressure is highest.

 

[Russeljones]

Thanks. I'm too lazy to search, it's not that big deal to me. So, this is a good reason why maybe players today are more consistent and we can put Sampras above Nadal.

But, doesn't this also mean if he beat those guys early, that he didn't need to beat them in later stages? So, he had it that much easier in finals, where the pressure is highest.

These are players he beat up to and including the finals.

 

[NatF]

Listed players he faced in QF or earlier, you can search the players rankings at the time. Sampras has always received unduly harsh criticism here over his draws.

90 USO Sampras (12) played Muster, Lendl, McEnroe and Agassi

93 Wimbledon Sampras (1) played Agassi, Becker and Courier

93 USO Sampras (2) played Chang, Volkov and Pioline

94 AO Sampras (1) played Lendl, Gustafsson, COurier and Martin

94 Wimbledon Sampras (1) played Chang, Martin and Ivanisevic

95 Wimbledon Sampras (2) played Matsuoka, Ivanisevic and Becker

95 USO Sampras (2) played Martin, Black, Courier and Agassi

96 FO Sampras (1) played Bruguera, Martin, Draper, Courier and Kafelnikov

96 USO Sampras (1) played Corretja, Ivanisevic and Chang

97 AO Sampras (1) played Costa, Muster and Moya

97 Wimbledon Sampras (1) played Korda, Becker, Woodbridge and Pioline

98 Wimbledon Sampras (1) played Enqvist, Grosjean, Philippoussis, Henman and Ivanisevic

99 Wimbledon Sampras (1) played Philippoussis, Henman and Agassi

00 Wimbledon Sampras (1) played Bjorkman, Jan-Michael Gambill, Voltchkov and Rafter

02 USO Sampras (17) played Enkqvist (29), Rusedski, Haas, Roddick, Shalken and Agassi.

IIRC he faced a young Philippoussis and Henman at Wimbledon in 1995 as well?

 

[Gary Duane]

5. Federer really is king of the Open Era.

There goes the thread. I wish you had not said that. Now you will start another GOAT-war.

 

[eldanger25]

There goes the thread. I wish you had not said that. Now you will start another GOAT-war.

Maybe so - hard to argue with Fed's accomplishments at this point though, apart of course from his poor record against Nadal on the biggest stages.

 

[Gary Duane]

Maybe so - hard to argue with Fed's accomplishments at this point though, apart of course from his poor record against Nadal on the biggest stages.

I don't have any skin in this game. Not many people are going to argue against EITHER Nadal or Fed being tops in this era, with Joker being a huge problem for both of them, and maybe with more slams to come.

Otherwise I liked your stats. I like viewing things from different angles. Even though there is a lot of data out there, it is not always so easy to order it in ways to see new things.

For instance, when viewing something like a H2H it would be great to be able to sort by surface, results only before age X, only after age Y, or to eliminate all results from one surface, KEEP all the results from one surface only.

Viewing Nadal and Fed, for instance, just on indoors, outdoor HCs, grass, and clay makes things look a bit different. I mean one at a time. It's my conclusion that Fed's strongest surface (grass) is under-represented with only 3 meetings due to too little grass competition. I would have loved to see these guys duke it out maybe 15 times on grass as they did on clay.

I think 20 years from now the main thing people will remember with these two players is how often they face each other, and how often one took things like slams from the other.