NikeWilson
Semi-Pro
you try again. This time put Federer's opponents he faced in Slams from '04-'07.
With 15 Majors and a Career Grand Slam, Is Roger Federer the Greatest Of All Time?
- Thread starter GasquetGOAT
- Start date
you try again. This time put Federer's opponents he faced in Slams from '04-'07.
Ultra2HolyGrail
Hall of Fame
Why does federer win so easily? This guy seems to know.
Now why does he win most of his matches so easily? How do his opponents contribute to their own demise?
1- About 95% of his ATP opponents, have no idea how to handle a backhand slice of any nature especially the short slice to the backhand or forehand.
2- Most of the ATP players clearly do not know how to attack with percentage play, let alone have a plan of attack to speak of! Exceptions; Tim Henman , Greg Rudzesky , Jiri Novak, Tommy Haas, David Nalbanian (all handicapped by injuries or old age), Ancic, Murray, Gasquet, Bagdahtis, Dyokovic young lads developing.
3- A majority of Rogers adversaries (exception Nadal), take on too much of Rogers "nice guy image" and are not pugnacious enough against him, turning what should be a boxing match into a social tea party. This culminates with Roger being so gracious at the Trophy awards ceremony, as to thanking his opponent and his camp (coach, agent, physiotherapist, etc...) for the "Good work"! Oh boy, in Pancho Gonzales, Ion Tiriac, Ilie Nastase, Jimmy Connors or John McEnroe's days, would Roger dare to say anything like that and they would all have beaten him up with the umpire chair!
4- They often overlook the fact that Roger is not as strong and loose under pressure as it seems. A good observer of the game will notice that Roger does not like to have his "feathers" ruffled and once that happens, he is prone to very average mistakes. As was the case in the Australian open final against Francisco Gonzales at 4/3, 5/4 with Gonzales not being able to capitalize! Those shaky moments on Rogers part happen pretty often under pressure and I have seen them against Nalbandian, Novak, Nadal, Murray, Baghdatis, Davidenko, Henman and others.
5- Except Rafael Nadal and perhaps Davidenko or Nalbandian, no player on the ATP tour puts consistent pressure on Roger Federers second service, either by getting inside the court and attacking down the line or by hitting a deep heavy topspin high bouncing shot, especially to the backhand side and putting Roger immediately on the run or defense!
6- Barring Davidenko and perhaps Tommy Haas, no one hits down the line firm, fast ground strokes, that can take reaction time away from Roger consistently enough. Also when pulled wide out of the court by Federer everyone goes for impossible cross court passing shots right at Federer who is waiting in the middle of the court, when to go for broke with a screaming down the line passing is the shot to play!
7- Zero players on the ATP tour can hit technically sound enough slice backhands and stay in on a battle with Roger to the point of forcing him to be the first one to change to a topspin shot and therefore be challenged to get under a low ball resulting very likely on a weaker, slower, waist high punishable short ball!
8- With so many pushed and floating returns from Federer no one serves and volleys, not even as a surprise!
9- Very few are able to or know how to go to the net on a short ball, with most either over hitting with fast topspin shots cross court right into Rogers favorite waist level target zone and leaving themselves in no-mans land, open to easy passing shots to either side. Instead of attacking 95% of the times up the alley with a sharp low slice that would enable them to get in closer to the net either for a put away volley or a placement volley for the kill on the next!
10- Rarely do they try to counter the short backhand slice from Federer with a drop-shot or short sliced ball up the line. The volleys on the stretch, particularly the forehand volley are very suspicious and prone to mistakes, especially when the shot is hit up the line.
11- Seldom does anyone try to bring Roger unwillingly to the net and then pass or lob him!
12- Practically noone gets close or inside the baseline at rallies, with a large majority running 6, 8, 10 feet and more behind the baseline hitting impossible ground strokes on the run, while Roger instead, steps inside the court and dictates the point!
There is plenty more but, if ATP players did in their matches on a consistent basis, only half of what I just wrote, against Roger Federer, professional tennis would be one hundred percent more interesting; Roger would have a true challenge and we all would win! Instead we are all condemned to further drubbings of Rogers opponents (should I say friends?) and more boring one-sided matches with yet additional unintended hilarious thank you comments to the other players and their "teams" by Roger Federer at the trophy presentations!
Just a short note to end, do not take me wrong! I do not want Roger Federer beaten, I want him challenged to see his true best! I love his game and style of play like I did from; Lew Hoad, Rod Laver, John Newcombe, Pat Cash, John McEnroe, Boris Becker, Michael Stich, Stefan Edberg, Pete Sampras and others. Roger Federer is the last player that is playing the all round game so called "old fashion tennis" and proving everyone how effective this style of play can be, instead of the hard-hitting at all times mindless baseline game of many pros of today.
In all honesty I hope that Federer will continue to dominate for at least another 3 to 6 years. That will help tennis as a whole because it will force teachers to teach the one handed backhand, topspin and the slice. On the other hand as Roger gets older the greater will be his need to go to the net to finish points quicker, this once again will force myopic teachers to teach the volley better and the serve and volley combination, which will lead to the all round game having future successors!
So, long live King Roger!
))
Now why does he win most of his matches so easily? How do his opponents contribute to their own demise?
1- About 95% of his ATP opponents, have no idea how to handle a backhand slice of any nature especially the short slice to the backhand or forehand.
2- Most of the ATP players clearly do not know how to attack with percentage play, let alone have a plan of attack to speak of! Exceptions; Tim Henman , Greg Rudzesky , Jiri Novak, Tommy Haas, David Nalbanian (all handicapped by injuries or old age), Ancic, Murray, Gasquet, Bagdahtis, Dyokovic young lads developing.
3- A majority of Rogers adversaries (exception Nadal), take on too much of Rogers "nice guy image" and are not pugnacious enough against him, turning what should be a boxing match into a social tea party. This culminates with Roger being so gracious at the Trophy awards ceremony, as to thanking his opponent and his camp (coach, agent, physiotherapist, etc...) for the "Good work"! Oh boy, in Pancho Gonzales, Ion Tiriac, Ilie Nastase, Jimmy Connors or John McEnroe's days, would Roger dare to say anything like that and they would all have beaten him up with the umpire chair!
4- They often overlook the fact that Roger is not as strong and loose under pressure as it seems. A good observer of the game will notice that Roger does not like to have his "feathers" ruffled and once that happens, he is prone to very average mistakes. As was the case in the Australian open final against Francisco Gonzales at 4/3, 5/4 with Gonzales not being able to capitalize! Those shaky moments on Rogers part happen pretty often under pressure and I have seen them against Nalbandian, Novak, Nadal, Murray, Baghdatis, Davidenko, Henman and others.
5- Except Rafael Nadal and perhaps Davidenko or Nalbandian, no player on the ATP tour puts consistent pressure on Roger Federers second service, either by getting inside the court and attacking down the line or by hitting a deep heavy topspin high bouncing shot, especially to the backhand side and putting Roger immediately on the run or defense!
6- Barring Davidenko and perhaps Tommy Haas, no one hits down the line firm, fast ground strokes, that can take reaction time away from Roger consistently enough. Also when pulled wide out of the court by Federer everyone goes for impossible cross court passing shots right at Federer who is waiting in the middle of the court, when to go for broke with a screaming down the line passing is the shot to play!
7- Zero players on the ATP tour can hit technically sound enough slice backhands and stay in on a battle with Roger to the point of forcing him to be the first one to change to a topspin shot and therefore be challenged to get under a low ball resulting very likely on a weaker, slower, waist high punishable short ball!
8- With so many pushed and floating returns from Federer no one serves and volleys, not even as a surprise!
9- Very few are able to or know how to go to the net on a short ball, with most either over hitting with fast topspin shots cross court right into Rogers favorite waist level target zone and leaving themselves in no-mans land, open to easy passing shots to either side. Instead of attacking 95% of the times up the alley with a sharp low slice that would enable them to get in closer to the net either for a put away volley or a placement volley for the kill on the next!
10- Rarely do they try to counter the short backhand slice from Federer with a drop-shot or short sliced ball up the line. The volleys on the stretch, particularly the forehand volley are very suspicious and prone to mistakes, especially when the shot is hit up the line.
11- Seldom does anyone try to bring Roger unwillingly to the net and then pass or lob him!
12- Practically noone gets close or inside the baseline at rallies, with a large majority running 6, 8, 10 feet and more behind the baseline hitting impossible ground strokes on the run, while Roger instead, steps inside the court and dictates the point!
There is plenty more but, if ATP players did in their matches on a consistent basis, only half of what I just wrote, against Roger Federer, professional tennis would be one hundred percent more interesting; Roger would have a true challenge and we all would win! Instead we are all condemned to further drubbings of Rogers opponents (should I say friends?) and more boring one-sided matches with yet additional unintended hilarious thank you comments to the other players and their "teams" by Roger Federer at the trophy presentations!
Just a short note to end, do not take me wrong! I do not want Roger Federer beaten, I want him challenged to see his true best! I love his game and style of play like I did from; Lew Hoad, Rod Laver, John Newcombe, Pat Cash, John McEnroe, Boris Becker, Michael Stich, Stefan Edberg, Pete Sampras and others. Roger Federer is the last player that is playing the all round game so called "old fashion tennis" and proving everyone how effective this style of play can be, instead of the hard-hitting at all times mindless baseline game of many pros of today.
In all honesty I hope that Federer will continue to dominate for at least another 3 to 6 years. That will help tennis as a whole because it will force teachers to teach the one handed backhand, topspin and the slice. On the other hand as Roger gets older the greater will be his need to go to the net to finish points quicker, this once again will force myopic teachers to teach the volley better and the serve and volley combination, which will lead to the all round game having future successors!
So, long live King Roger!
))
Eviscerator
Banned
I think Pete was put up there because of his similar dominance during his prime, along with the number of slams. However his inability to win the French is a big hole in his resume. So while we will need for Federer to retire before we can accurately assess his career, he has probably eclipsed Sampras in most peoples minds because of winning the French this year.
lambielspins
Banned
Yes I agree with that. I have no problem with someone saying Laver especialy is still the mens GOAT. Personaly he is my choice too until Federer achieves even more. There are others from the past who could be strongly considered also. However Federer is pretty much removing Sampras from the discussion altogether at the moment by eclipsing his slam record and dwarfing his clay record completely.
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
darrinbaker00
Professional
As long as Rafael Nadal holds the deed to Roger's rear end, Roger can never be GOAT. Period.
Umm, Federer's all-around game is what is among the greatest ever; even if none of the individual components are. But individual components among the greatest ever -- without much qualification -- are forehand, serve, mental toughness, movement, touch. Touch means all of those soft shots, including net-play; I won't say he is among all-time greatest ever in net-play, but unfortunately this era has deprecated the net. In a different era, we'd be marveling at his net-play; he played incredible at net against Sampras, and when he first won Wimbledon, McEnroe was drooling over his S&V game.
But I agree that it is difficult to compare eras. You can only say who was the best player over a given period of time; and time-periods can also over-lap.
Sampras, Laver, Tilden, Budge, Gonzales, Rosewall, Budge, and Borg are all worthy names in contention when talking about the all-time greats. Among the pre Open-Era players, I'd also add Vines and Hoad. Post Open-Era, you have to add Jimmy Nastase and Connors for the gap between Laver and Borg. McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, and Becker shared the misfortune of largely playing in the same era. And of course, along with Sampras, there's also Agassi with his career slam in that era.
But if I had to broadly define the 1st tier players all time, loosely defining eras, I'd say: William Renshaw, Bill Tilden, Lacoste, Crawford, Rosewell, Don Budge & Elsworth Vines (when he was on), Pancho Gonzales, Emerson, Rod Laver, Borg, Lendl, Sampras, Federer. I'm probably missing a few.
I think that Jack Kramer is pretty authoritative on the greatest players of all time.
CyBorg
Legend
Those who say 'yes' should state their reason. Merely listing Federer's accomplishments doesn't qualify as an argument in his favour. Everything is relative.
Vermillion
Banned
I'm going to go with Mr. Laver's perspective and agree that Federer is the greatest of his era.
TennisFan481
Banned
Is there even a right answer to this question?
These threads are pretty stupid because I don't think Roger winning more stuff really proves what kind of player he is. We should've already known the caliber of player he was several years ago.
Now, if we want to have an empirical argument about MOST ACCOMPLISHED player...that's another matter entirely.
Federer easily tops Sampras without too much argument in that category. Borg is debatable even without a US Open title (or AO, but that's because he didn't play the AO as it wasn't considered that important back then)...because 6 French Opens and 5 Wimbledons is just absurd.
And of course, Rod Laver is right there with his two calendar slams.
Other than that...maybe you look at the Don Budge/Roy Emersons of the pre-open era...but they're immediately at a disadvantage in an argument with Federer given the defending champion only had to win one match back then.
These threads are pretty stupid because I don't think Roger winning more stuff really proves what kind of player he is. We should've already known the caliber of player he was several years ago.
Now, if we want to have an empirical argument about MOST ACCOMPLISHED player...that's another matter entirely.
Federer easily tops Sampras without too much argument in that category. Borg is debatable even without a US Open title (or AO, but that's because he didn't play the AO as it wasn't considered that important back then)...because 6 French Opens and 5 Wimbledons is just absurd.
And of course, Rod Laver is right there with his two calendar slams.
Other than that...maybe you look at the Don Budge/Roy Emersons of the pre-open era...but they're immediately at a disadvantage in an argument with Federer given the defending champion only had to win one match back then.
NikeWilson
Semi-Pro
well, Nadal is the only player that's been able to beat Federer in the Grand Slam Finals. Nadal has beaten Federer 5 out of 7 times, i think.
so that's quite an achievement in itself, for the argument of Nadal's greatness.
Nadal needs to beat Federer a few more times, and in the process win a few more Grand Slams, including the US Open(Career Grand Slam). then there will be an even stronger argument that Federer cannot be the greatest of All Time. and perhaps Nadal is. (the GOAT)
Last edited:
mucat
Hall of Fame
Until Federer beat Nadal on clay playing left handed with 2HBH and wearing capris, he is still a sub standard player.
Let see...
Federer's serve is slower than Roddick.
Federer's BH is weak compare to everyone in ATP.
Federer's FH doesn't bounce as high as Nadal.
Federer is not as tall as Ivo Karlovic.
Federer is not as short as Oliver Rochus. (Clearly the only thing Federer rely on is his height)
Federer's racket is way too big. (If Sampras can win 14 GS with smaller racket, Federer has to do the same)
The list just go on and on...
Let see...
Federer's serve is slower than Roddick.
Federer's BH is weak compare to everyone in ATP.
Federer's FH doesn't bounce as high as Nadal.
Federer is not as tall as Ivo Karlovic.
Federer is not as short as Oliver Rochus. (Clearly the only thing Federer rely on is his height)
Federer's racket is way too big. (If Sampras can win 14 GS with smaller racket, Federer has to do the same)
The list just go on and on...
GasquetGOAT
Hall of Fame
Roger Federer Surpasses Tiger Woods, Pete Sampras, and Rafael Nadal
Roger Federer Surpasses Tiger Woods, Pete Sampras, and Rafael Nadal
Switzerland's Roger Federer has defeated American Andy Roddick to claim his sixth Wimbledon crown in London, England. The epic contest will go down as the greatest match in men's singles history held on Centre Court.
The final score was 5-7, 7-6 (8-6), 7-6 (7-5), 3-6, 16-14. The two men played the longest fifth set, in terms of games—30—in Wimbledon history.
With the victory, Federer leapfrogged a trio of athletic superstars: one legend of his sport, a current tennis standout and the athlete heretofore considered to be the greatest and most dominant active sportsman in the world today, with apologies to 14-time Olympic gold medalist Michael Phelps.
Federer's triumph at the All England Club garnered him his 15th major tennis championship, eclipsing the 14 won by seven-time Wimbledon titlist Pete Sampras.
The Swiss had already achieved the career Grand Slam distinction earlier this month by virtue of his claiming the French Open crown. None of Sampras' majors successes ever took place on the clay surface of Roland Garros.
Roger Federer now regains the men's world No. 1 ranking from injured rival Rafael Nadal. The Majorca, Spain native lost in the fourth round of the French Open and was unable to defend his 2008 Wimbledon title due to tendinitis in both knees.
Federer is now the greatest men's tennis player since at least the inception of the Open Era in 1968. Some will argue that Rod Laver, with his two Grand Slams and 11 major championships, was at least as good as Federer.
This is not a widely-held view among the legends of the sport, however. Sampras has already stated he feels the Swiss is the greatest in the history of tennis, and that was before Federer's victory today on Centre Court.
John McEnroe, Swedish icon Bjorn Borg and even Laver himself have all concurred.
Federer is the most prolific major championship winner in the history of his sport. Anything Laver may or may not have done—against inferior athletes from a smaller talent base—is merely hypothetical, and cannot be held against the Swiss.
Federer is the best male player to ever lift a racket, much as Tiger Woods, should he capture five more major titles, will surpass Jack Nicklaus in golf's own pantheon.
Woods, like Sampras and Nadal, is the final casualty of Federer's 2009 Wimbledon success. Tiger, who once made a fantastic commercial lauding good friend Federer's achievements while simultaneously declaring his own, superior horde of major championships, now finds himself on the losing side of not only that ledger, but the aforementioned one as well: Federer has achieved all-time greatest status in his field while Tiger yet remains some distance away from that mark in his own sport.
That is, of course, to be expected. Golfers have far longer careers than do tennis players. It stands to reason that it would take longer for Woods to surpass Nicklaus' 18 majors than it would take Federer to overtake Sampras' 14.
Unfortunately for Woods, however, this is where such pleasant considerations end.
Federer has won 15 major championships in 41 tournaments. Tiger Woods has captured 14 major titles in 54 attempts. That is, Tiger Woods has had over three years more than Federer to accumulate major victories and yet the Swiss still has surpassed the golfing prodigy.
Further, it must be pointed out that Woods is 33 years old and Federer has yet to turn 28. Tiger Woods won his initial major championship in 1997. Roger secured the first of his 15 in 2003.
Since the beginning of 2003, Federer has won 15 major titles. Woods, in the same time period of time, has taken home "just" six.
Roger Federer is the most dominant, accomplished athlete of his era. He is the greatest men's tennis player in the history of the sport.
What of Michael Phelps?
In addition to his 15 major championships, Federer is also the proud owner of his own Olympic gold medal. Federer and Swiss countryman Stanislas Wawrinka won the men's doubles event at the 2008 Beijing Games.
Roger Federer 16, Michael Phelps 14.
Of Phelps' 14 Olympic gold medals, it has to be said, five came as part of a group. Only one of Federer's 16 major championships and gold medal came as part of a pairing. There are no medley relays in men's tennis to bolster one's individual accomplishments.
Enjoy and embrace the singular athletic excellence that is Federer. As of today, he stands alone on the pinnacle of world sport. Stands above Woods, Phelps, Kobe Bryant and the rest.
He has achieved the historical apex of men's tennis yet shows no true signs of decline. Federer has, you will recall, won three of the last four tennis majors. How many will he possess when he finally does hang up his racket, 16, 18, 20?
No one can answer that question with any certainty today, not even the Swiss Maestro himself.
Where Federer concludes his career is a topic for another time. For today, it is enough to know that in him we have the privilege of watching not only the best male player who ever participated in his sport but also the greatest and most dominant athlete of his era.
And, for that matter, one of the greatest sports competitors of any era.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...woods-pete-sampras-and-rafael-nadal/show_full
Roger Federer Surpasses Tiger Woods, Pete Sampras, and Rafael Nadal
Switzerland's Roger Federer has defeated American Andy Roddick to claim his sixth Wimbledon crown in London, England. The epic contest will go down as the greatest match in men's singles history held on Centre Court.
The final score was 5-7, 7-6 (8-6), 7-6 (7-5), 3-6, 16-14. The two men played the longest fifth set, in terms of games—30—in Wimbledon history.
With the victory, Federer leapfrogged a trio of athletic superstars: one legend of his sport, a current tennis standout and the athlete heretofore considered to be the greatest and most dominant active sportsman in the world today, with apologies to 14-time Olympic gold medalist Michael Phelps.
Federer's triumph at the All England Club garnered him his 15th major tennis championship, eclipsing the 14 won by seven-time Wimbledon titlist Pete Sampras.
The Swiss had already achieved the career Grand Slam distinction earlier this month by virtue of his claiming the French Open crown. None of Sampras' majors successes ever took place on the clay surface of Roland Garros.
Roger Federer now regains the men's world No. 1 ranking from injured rival Rafael Nadal. The Majorca, Spain native lost in the fourth round of the French Open and was unable to defend his 2008 Wimbledon title due to tendinitis in both knees.
Federer is now the greatest men's tennis player since at least the inception of the Open Era in 1968. Some will argue that Rod Laver, with his two Grand Slams and 11 major championships, was at least as good as Federer.
This is not a widely-held view among the legends of the sport, however. Sampras has already stated he feels the Swiss is the greatest in the history of tennis, and that was before Federer's victory today on Centre Court.
John McEnroe, Swedish icon Bjorn Borg and even Laver himself have all concurred.
Federer is the most prolific major championship winner in the history of his sport. Anything Laver may or may not have done—against inferior athletes from a smaller talent base—is merely hypothetical, and cannot be held against the Swiss.
Federer is the best male player to ever lift a racket, much as Tiger Woods, should he capture five more major titles, will surpass Jack Nicklaus in golf's own pantheon.
Woods, like Sampras and Nadal, is the final casualty of Federer's 2009 Wimbledon success. Tiger, who once made a fantastic commercial lauding good friend Federer's achievements while simultaneously declaring his own, superior horde of major championships, now finds himself on the losing side of not only that ledger, but the aforementioned one as well: Federer has achieved all-time greatest status in his field while Tiger yet remains some distance away from that mark in his own sport.
That is, of course, to be expected. Golfers have far longer careers than do tennis players. It stands to reason that it would take longer for Woods to surpass Nicklaus' 18 majors than it would take Federer to overtake Sampras' 14.
Unfortunately for Woods, however, this is where such pleasant considerations end.
Federer has won 15 major championships in 41 tournaments. Tiger Woods has captured 14 major titles in 54 attempts. That is, Tiger Woods has had over three years more than Federer to accumulate major victories and yet the Swiss still has surpassed the golfing prodigy.
Further, it must be pointed out that Woods is 33 years old and Federer has yet to turn 28. Tiger Woods won his initial major championship in 1997. Roger secured the first of his 15 in 2003.
Since the beginning of 2003, Federer has won 15 major titles. Woods, in the same time period of time, has taken home "just" six.
Roger Federer is the most dominant, accomplished athlete of his era. He is the greatest men's tennis player in the history of the sport.
What of Michael Phelps?
In addition to his 15 major championships, Federer is also the proud owner of his own Olympic gold medal. Federer and Swiss countryman Stanislas Wawrinka won the men's doubles event at the 2008 Beijing Games.
Roger Federer 16, Michael Phelps 14.
Of Phelps' 14 Olympic gold medals, it has to be said, five came as part of a group. Only one of Federer's 16 major championships and gold medal came as part of a pairing. There are no medley relays in men's tennis to bolster one's individual accomplishments.
Enjoy and embrace the singular athletic excellence that is Federer. As of today, he stands alone on the pinnacle of world sport. Stands above Woods, Phelps, Kobe Bryant and the rest.
He has achieved the historical apex of men's tennis yet shows no true signs of decline. Federer has, you will recall, won three of the last four tennis majors. How many will he possess when he finally does hang up his racket, 16, 18, 20?
No one can answer that question with any certainty today, not even the Swiss Maestro himself.
Where Federer concludes his career is a topic for another time. For today, it is enough to know that in him we have the privilege of watching not only the best male player who ever participated in his sport but also the greatest and most dominant athlete of his era.
And, for that matter, one of the greatest sports competitors of any era.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...woods-pete-sampras-and-rafael-nadal/show_full
Thor
Professional
Federer Competition in slams he won:
M. Philipoussis (0 slams)
M. Baghdatis (0 slams)
F. Gonzalez (0 slams)
A. Murray (0 slams)
R. Soderling (0 slams)
A. Roddick. beat him 4 times (1 slam)
N. Djokovic (1 slam)
M. Safin (2 slams)
L. Hewitt (2 slams)
A. Agassi (8 slams)
R. Nadal. beat him twice (6 slams)
Not that this says ANYTHING,but whats your point Drak?
These numbers dont really support your case.
Last edited:
Thor
Professional
As always,voice of reason
Most of Federer's rivals are still active. At least some of them will add to their current totals of Slam titles before they retire.
Thor
Professional
As ive said i think these numbers dont mean much.
Drak posted these as a sign of Sampras' "weak" competition,all im saying is that they dont support his case.
Nadal,Murray,Djokovic and maybe Roddick will probably win some more,how many more - who knows?
Sampras beat a zero slam player 3 times in finals compared to Federer's 5(most probably that
Murray will finish with more than 1,all others will remain slamless),and theres another way to look at it:
Sampras won 14 slams against players who won 48 slams(Agassi 8 slams X 4 times,etc etc)
Federer won 15 against players who won 29.
On average,Sampras' Slam final opponents won 3.42 titles compared to Federer's 1.93
Again,meaningless numbers out in bad context.
Last edited:
Similar threads
