Who is the Greatest Wimbledon player of all time?

[Prisoner of Birth]

It's between Federer and Sampras, that much is indisputable. But who among them is THE Wimbledon GOAT? Let's look at what the statistics say :


Federer/Sampras

Number of championships : 7/7
Number of finals : 8/7
Number of semifinals : 8/8
Number of quarterfinals : 11/9
Number of wins : 66/63 (both have 7 losses)

Most consecutive championships : 5/4
Most consecutive finals : 7/4
Most consecutive semifinals : 7/4
Most consecutive quarterfinals : 10/9
Most consecutive wins : 41/31



Federer leads (or is tied) in every regard, statistically. So who, in your opinion, is the Greatest Wimbledon Player Of All Time among the Gentlemen?

[darrinbaker00]

William Renshaw, of course. Next topic, please.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by darrinbaker00

William Renshaw, of course. Next topic, please.

He only won 7 in a relatively minuscule field. Not even close to being in discussions. Try again, please.

[Sid_Vicious]

Originally Posted by darrinbaker00

William Renshaw, of course. Next topic, please.

Are you being serious?

[RF20Lennon]

Federer in terms of stats and all that but one more would cement it.

[Sid_Vicious]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

He only won 7 in a relatively minuscule field. Not even close to being in discussions. Try again, please.

Not to mention that when he won the title, he automatically got a freepass to the finals of the following years championships.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by Sid_Vicious

Not to mention that when he won the title, he automatically got a freepass to the finals of the following years championships.

Oh yeah, that too.

[darrinbaker00]

Originally Posted by Sid_Vicious

Are you being serious?

Of course I'm being serious. Everyone knows that winning just one match for the title, as Renshaw did for six of his, is much tougher than winning seven.

[helloworld]

Sampras was more dominant during his prime than Federer ever was. Prime for prime, I would definitely give it to Sampras.

[Mustard]

Just remember that no professional tennis players could play a single match on Wimbledon's courts until August 1967. There were no dominant Wimbledon champions between Fred Perry and Rod Laver/Bjorn Borg because the best amateur players who won Wimbledon, would turn professional and thus make themselves ineligible for future Wimbledons (as well as the other 3 mainstream majors) until the start of the open era in April 1968. The first time that professional tennis players could play at Wimbledon was at the 1967 Wimbledon Pro tournament, won by Rod Laver.

With all this in mind, people have really got to stop using today's criteria for past eras.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by helloworld

Sampras was more dominant during his prime than Federer ever was. Prime for prime, I would definitely give it to Sampras.

For one thing, we're talking about who the greater player is, not who was more dominant in their prime. For another, it's untrue that Sampras was more dominant. Sampras was often pushed to 5 sets in his prime while Federer rarely was. And it's Federer that won 5 Championships in a row, a feat matched only by Bjorn Borg.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Just remember that no professional tennis players could play a single match on Wimbledon's courts until August 1967. There were no dominant Wimbledon champions between Fred Perry and Rod Laver/Bjorn Borg because the best amateur players who won Wimbledon, would turn professional and thus make themselves ineligible for future Wimbledons (as well as the other 3 mainstream majors) until the start of the open era in April 1968. The first time that professional tennis players could play at Wimbledon was at the 1967 Wimbledon Pro tournament, won by Rod Laver.

With all this in mind, people have really got to stop using today's criteria for past eras.

Who would you say is the Wimbledon GOAT? I've never seen you offer any opinion on who the greater player is in any discussion.

[darrinbaker00]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

For one thing, we're talking about who the greater player is, not who was more dominant. For another, it's untrue that Sampras was more dominant. Sampras was often pushed to 5 sets in his prime while Federer rarely was. And it's Federer that won 5 Championships in a row, a feat matched only by Bjorn Borg.

Also, Federer doesn't have a George Bastl in his Wimbledon closet.

[tennis_pro]

Originally Posted by helloworld

Sampras was more dominant during his prime than Federer ever was. Prime for prime, I would definitely give it to Sampras.

Really. How many sets did Sampras lose in his 7 winning runs compared to Federer, again?

Or maybe you mean more dominant as for he ended the points more quickly? Cause the stats prove otherwise.

Sampras has nothing on Federer. Nothing.

[Mustard]

Rod Laver was unbeaten at Wimbledon for 10 years. He lost the 1960 Wimbledon final to Neale Fraser. After that, he won Wimbledon in 1961 and 1962, turned professional in late 1962 after completing the Grand Slam, which meant that Laver couldn't play Wimbledon from 1963 to 1967. Laver won the Wimbledon Pro tournament in 1967, won the first open Wimbledon tournament in 1968 and won Wimbledon again in 1969. The streak ended in the R16 of 1970 Wimbledon, where Laver lost to Roger Taylor.

[helloworld]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

For one thing, we're talking about who the greater player is, not who was more dominant. For another, it's untrue that Sampras was more dominant. Sampras was often pushed to 5 sets in his prime while Federer rarely was. And it's Federer that won 5 Championships in a row, a feat matched only by Bjorn Borg.

Seems like you already made up your mind. In this case, you might as well close the poll and change the thread to "Federer is the greatest Wimbledon champion of all time".

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Who would you say is the Wimbledon GOAT? I've never seen you offer any opinion on who the greater player is in any discussion.

That's a very complex question. But it's clear that with Roger Federer and Pete Sampras both winning 7 Wimbledons, people use that to disadvantage previous generations, especially pre-open era. No amateur player would have stayed amateur until they had won 7 Wimbledons, unless we go back to the days when there was no professional tennis at all, like with William Renshaw winning 7 Wimbledons in the 1880s.

[tennis_pro]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Rod Laver was unbeaten at Wimbledon for 10 years. He lost the 1960 Wimbledon final to Neale Fraser. After that, he won Wimbledon in 1961 and 1962, turned professional in late 1962 after completing the Grand Slam, which meant that Laver couldn't play Wimbledon from 1963 to 1967. Laver won the Wimbledon Pro tournament in 1967, won the first open Wimbledon tournament in 1968 and won Wimbledon again in 1969. The streak ended in the R16 of 1970 Wimbledon, where Laver lost to Roger Taylor.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by helloworld

Seems like you already made up your mind. In this case, you might as well close the poll and change the thread to "Federer is the greatest Wimbledon champion of all time".

I'm just giving you the facts, mate If you can't take them, just say, "I go by whatever I want to, I can't back up my opinion with facts and arguments, so leave me alone and let me believe whatever I want to. Thanks!"

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by Mustard

That's a very complex question. But it's clear that with Roger Federer and Pete Sampras both winning 7 Wimbledons, people use that to disadvantage previous generations, especially pre-open era. No amateur player would have stayed amateur until they had won 7 Wimbledons, unless we go back to the days when there was no professional tennis at all, like with William Renshaw winning 7 Wimbledons in the 1880s.

Okay, what about between Federer and Sampras?