Talk Tennis

Talk Tennis (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php)
-   Former Pro Player Talk (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/forumdisplay.php?f=37)
-   -   Pete Sampras year end number 1 for six years (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=452106)

jorel 01-23-2013 09:33 AM

Pete Sampras year end number 1 for six years
 

This stat alone can always be used to argue that Sampras is one of the greatest ever…if not the greatest along with Federer

Even if 20 other people get 15 grand slams each in the future

For six years,,,he was the best player on the planet at the end of the year

Even the mighty Federer cant make that claim

forzamilan90 01-23-2013 09:36 AM

Good for him

tennis_pro 01-23-2013 09:38 AM

Sampras' such long reign is completely worthless. His 1998 ranking/performances were comparable to Del Potro's in 2009 - and while Sampras finished the year 1st Del Potro was 5th LOL.

He was the flat out best player in 1993, 1994 and 1997. In 1995 Agassi was better but he injured himself at the end of the year and Sampras just barely continued his reign (the difference was like 100 ranking points despite Agassi missing the last 3 months of the season). In 1996 Sampras won only 1 major, lost in one quarter and one semi, won no Masters yet he still comfortably ended the year ranked 1st. It says how weak the tour was.

Federer lost like 20 matches in 2004-2007, his reign was an actual reign, not just being "barely" better than anyone else from his generation like Sampras did. Heck, guys like Moya, Rios, Muster, Rafter could take away the top spot from Sampras while Federer lost his top ranking in August 2008 to a GOATing Nadal.

MLB_MOB 01-23-2013 09:39 AM

While its true that Federer can't say he was year end #1 for 6 years in a row. He was #1 consistently for 237 weeks, has more total weeks at #1, has more slams, and has more YECs.

Also lets not forget that Federer had the superior rival in Nadal. Not saying that Agassi is bad, but Nadal's idea of a good time isn't going hard on tweak

BrooklynNY 01-23-2013 09:41 AM

OP - Of Course

NadalDramaQueen 01-23-2013 09:50 AM

Short answer: Nope.

Long answer: See some of the posts above and others that will be sure to follow.

Pete was a great player, one of the greatest, but it's time to let go of the GOAT title.

mattennis 01-23-2013 09:52 AM

Well, 6 Year-End Nš1 and 286 total weeks at nš1 one of them (Sampras) and 5 Year-End Nš1 and 302 total weeks at nš1 the other (Federer).

Both amazing stats.

Had it been a computer ranking system in the 50s and Pancho Gonzales would have been nš1 for 6 years easily (and Tilden maybe for 10 years easily in the 20s).

Hood_Man 01-23-2013 09:57 AM

It's an incredible stat and I agree that it puts him right up there with the best, he dominated a decade.

Federer doesn't need to beat every record though.

Agassifan 01-23-2013 10:07 AM

303/237/5 > 286/./6

heninfan99 01-23-2013 10:08 AM

I think the 6 year-end #1 stat is the record Sampras will be able to hold on to for a long time to come.

I read a Pat Cash blog about his take on the GOAT. He chose Pancho Gonzales. He makes a very convincing case too.

I usually place Laver as the GOAT but now I have to reassess as I learn more about Pancho Gonzales.

At the end of the day you can't really compare eras. Sampras was amazing in his though. His ground strokes were much better than people seem to remember.


Quote:

Originally Posted by mattennis (Post 7153961)
Well, 6 Year-End Nš1 and 286 total weeks at nš1 one of them (Sampras) and 5 Year-End Nš1 and 302 total weeks at nš1 the other (Federer).

Both amazing stats.

Had it been a computer ranking system in the 50s and Pancho Gonzales would have been nš1 for 6 years easily (and Tilden maybe for 10 years easily in the 20s).


ultradr 01-23-2013 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tennis_pro (Post 7153927)

Federer lost like 20 matches in 2004-2007, his reign was an actual reign, not just being "barely" better than anyone else from his generation like Sampras did. Heck, guys like Moya, Rios, Muster, Rafter could take away the top spot from Sampras while Federer lost his top ranking in August 2008 to a GOATing Nadal.

Today's tour is pretty much one surface, all or nothing, homogeneous
environment. We pretty much always have at least 3 out of 4 top seeds at
semi final of all slams.

Today, #1 dominates the entire tour, all power baseline game. Either you #1 for
all year or your are #2. Other smaller factors are 1. 32 are seeded. 2. there
is no bonus point if lower ranker beats higher ranked players and so on.

All these promotes very few top players dominate the tour all year long
so that fans see familiar players on TV on weekends.

IMHO, the tennis of 70's - 90's were unique period in tennis history. We had
true varieties of players and conditions that brought out all aspect of tennis
in the way tennis meant to be played.

mattennis 01-23-2013 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ultradr (Post 7154015)
Today's tour is pretty much one surface, all or nothing, homogeneous
environment. We pretty much always have at least 3 out of 4 top seeds at
semi final of all slams.

Today, #1 dominates the entire tour, all power baseline game. Either you #1 for
all year or your are #2. Other smaller factors are 1. 32 are seeded. 2. there
is no bonus point if lower ranker beats higher ranked players and so on.

All these promotes very few top players dominate the tour all year long
so that fans see familiar players on TV on weekends.

IMHO, the tennis of 70's - 90's were unique period in tennis history. We had
true varieties of players and conditions that brought out all aspect of tennis
in the way tennis meant to be played.

QFT

It was almost like three or four different sport in one sport and so many different players with their unique style and flare.

Today you watch basically the very same product (with very little variations) all the time.

It is now like a totally different thing altogether, a boring repetitive thing once and again.

And when Federer retires, I guess I'll only watch past eras DVD matches....

axel89 01-23-2013 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattennis (Post 7154065)
QFT

It was almost like three or four different sport in one sport and so many different players with their unique style and flare.

Today you watch basically the very same product (with very little variations) all the time.

It is now like a totally different thing altogether, a boring repetitive thing once and again.

And when Federer retires, I guess I'll only watch past eras DVD matches....

get over it everything evolves tennis man

DropShotArtist 01-23-2013 10:35 AM

Pete is a distant second to Federer now. Petetards need to remove the blinders and grow up.

ultradr 01-23-2013 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hood_Man (Post 7153981)
Federer doesn't need to beat every record though.

In current environment, there will be more dominant player
and wins his 1st slam as a teenager, and accumulate ~20+ slams.

And Federer's reign was interrupted by ~5 year younger generation:
Nadal, Djokovic. This is weak as a all time greats. Top 5 GOATs dominated
a decade until 10+ younger generation arrived.

IMHO, Federer knows this and is playing to show that he can stand again
at the top over Nadal, Djokovic and Murray.


I am pretty sure that's the reason why Federer is playing now.

Phoenix1983 01-23-2013 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by heninfan99 (Post 7154008)

I read a Pat Cash blog about his take on the GOAT. He chose Pancho Gonzales. He makes a very convincing case too.

I usually place Laver as the GOAT but now I have to reassess as I learn more about Pancho Gonzales.

Pancho wasn't good enough on clay to be GOAT.

paulorenzo 01-23-2013 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MLB_MOB (Post 7153928)
While its true that Federer can't say he was year end #1 for 6 years in a row. He was #1 consistently for 237 weeks, has more total weeks at #1, has more slams, and has more YECs.

Also lets not forget that Federer had the superior rival in Nadal. Not saying that Agassi is bad, but Nadal's idea of a good time isn't going hard on tweak

imagine what nadal would be like if it was his idea of a good time. those water bottles would be sooo organized.

zagor 01-23-2013 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ultradr (Post 7154143)
In current environment, there will be more dominant player
and wins his 1st slam as a teenager, and accumulate ~20+ slams.

And Federer's reign was interrupted by ~5 year younger generation:
Nadal, Djokovic. This is weak as a all time greats. Top 5 GOATs dominated
a decade until 10+ younger generation arrived.

If 5 years of domination is weak for Fed as an all-time great then so is 6 years for Sampras as well, you do realize number 6 is closer to number 5 than number 10, Fastdunn? Not to mention that Fed was more dominant in his years at #1 than Sampras was by a solid margin, yes I know you can say that was due to homogenization of the surfaces/different seeding system in slams etc. but I can also say Fed didn't have 6 or more years at #1 because Nadal is a greater player and competitor than Agassi.

And yes it's possible there will a more dominant player than Fed in current conditions but until it actually happens, it's just speculation and thus silly to use as an argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ultradr (Post 7154143)
IMHO, Federer knows this and is playing to show that he can stand again
at the top over Nadal, Djokovic and Murray.


I am pretty sure that's the reason why Federer is playing now

Yeah, that would be the reason Fed is still playing, if he was a nutjob.

He's playing because he hopes to win a few more slams if he can (thus making his slam record tougher to break) and because he still enjoys it.

Thinking that he could stand at the top over Nadal, Novak and Murray at the age of 31-32 with them being in their mid 20s would make him delusional and somehow I never got that vibe from Fed's interviews.

zagor 01-23-2013 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NadalDramaQueen (Post 7153952)
Short answer: Nope.

Long answer: See some of the posts above and others that will be sure to follow.

Pete was a great player, one of the greatest, but it's time to let go of the GOAT title.

Wouldn't say that, the whole GOAT topic is very subjective, Sampras was great enough to always be in the conversation IMO.

90's Clay 01-23-2013 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tennis_pro (Post 7153927)
Sampras' such long reign is completely worthless. His 1998 ranking/performances were comparable to Del Potro's in 2009 - and while Sampras finished the year 1st Del Potro was 5th LOL.

He was the flat out best player in 1993, 1994 and 1997. In 1995 Agassi was better but he injured himself at the end of the year and Sampras just barely continued his reign (the difference was like 100 ranking points despite Agassi missing the last 3 months of the season). In 1996 Sampras won only 1 major, lost in one quarter and one semi, won no Masters yet he still comfortably ended the year ranked 1st. It says how weak the tour was.

Federer lost like 20 matches in 2004-2007, his reign was an actual reign, not just being "barely" better than anyone else from his generation like Sampras did. Heck, guys like Moya, Rios, Muster, Rafter could take away the top spot from Sampras while Federer lost his top ranking in August 2008 to a GOATing Nadal.


I can say the same about this homogenized JOKE era which is a pusher's paradise and makes year round dominance 5 times easier then any era prior.

3 guys just in the last 5 years alone have managed 3 slams in one calendar year.. Prior to that, it was done twice in 40 plus years?

Guys today's dont even have to deal with fast surfaces be it indoors or outdoors (which would DESTROY any chance of consistency they have)


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:28 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2006 - Tennis Warehouse