Which period was most similar to Nadal's RG dominance: Sampras or Federer@Wimbledon?

[6-1 6-3 6-0]

As we know, Nadal has a 52-1 record at Roland Garros, winning 7 out of 7 Roland Garros finals (a record). And Nadal has won Roland Garros in 7 out of 8 attempts.

Sampras won 7 Wimbledon finals out of 7, and won 7 Wimbledon titles in 8 consecutive attempts (1993-2000).
Federer on the other hand has won 7 Wimbledon finals out of 8, and has won 7 Wimbledon titles in 10 consecutive attempts (2003-2012).

Whose 'dominance' at Wimbledon was most similar to Nadal's?

[RF20Lennon]

Originally Posted by 6-1 6-3 6-0

As we know, Nadal has a 52-1 record at Roland Garros, winning 7 out of 7 Roland Garros finals (a record). And Nadal has won Roland Garros in 7 out of 8 attempts.

Sampras won 7 Wimbledon finals out of 7, and won 7 Wimbledon titles in 8 consecutive attempts (1993-2000).
Federer on the other hand has won 7 Wimbledon finals out of 8, and has won 7 Wimbledon titles in 10 consecutive attempts (2003-2012).

Whose 'dominance' at Wimbledon was most similar to Nadal's?

Fed won 5 straight plus never lost before QF's but Sampras like nadal won 4 in a row and then 3 so maybe Sampras??

[6-1 6-3 6-0]

Originally Posted by RF20Lennon

Fed won 5 straight plus never lost before QF's but Sampras like nadal won 4 in a row and then 3 so maybe Sampras??

Good point, but Federer at Wimbledon from 2008-2012 (winning 2 out of 5 titles) almost negates the 5 in a row.

[90's Clay]

Neither really. Nadal's French Open dominance overall is just NUTS. Hes only ever lost once there in his entire career.

However, Sampras' grass competition during the 90s was better then Nadal's clay competition in the 00s-10's, so that could be taken into account.

[ledwix]

Originally Posted by 6-1 6-3 6-0

Good point, but Federer at Wimbledon from 2008-2012 (winning 2 out of 5 titles) almost negates the 5 in a row.

You can't negate history...*facepalm*

I suppose you think Nadal 2014-2018 will show how good he *really* is at RG? If he doesn't win them all, that almost "negates" his first five.

[OHBH]

Originally Posted by 6-1 6-3 6-0

Good point, but Federer at Wimbledon from 2008-2012 (winning 2 out of 5 titles) almost negates the 5 in a row.

Exactly why I voted for Sampras. Though this comparison will likely not last long as Nadal's dominance on clay has yet to fade and we can expect another two RG titles in the next four years.

[tennis_pro]

Originally Posted by 6-1 6-3 6-0

Good point, but Federer at Wimbledon from 2008-2012 (winning 2 out of 5 titles) almost negates the 5 in a row.

Sampras in 1998-2002 had 3 wins and 2 losses before the quarters (one to a lucky loser), I guess that negates whatever he's done before.

[RAFA2005RG]

I agree Sampras' is far more convincing than Federer's, because Sampras faced grasscourt players.

[kishnabe]

Even as a *******.....I would have to say Sampras. 8 titles in 9 years for Sampras. Similiar to Nadal 7 titles in 8 years at RG.

Federer is 7 titles in 10 years. Still very very impressive.

Out of the three however Sampras is the most impresive....since there were more Grass Court threats.

Nadal is playing in a weak cc era and Federer in a weak Grass era. They would have still won the same ammount with stronger competition.....cause they are so damm good. Still it did not happen.....Sampras has a better dominance than Nadal.

[fed_rulz]

Originally Posted by kishnabe

Even as a *******.....I would have to say Sampras. 8 titles in 9 years for Sampras. Similiar to Nadal 7 titles in 8 years at RG.

Federer is 7 titles in 10 years. Still very very impressive.

Out of the three however Sampras is the most impresive....since there were more Grass Court threats.

Nadal is playing in a weak cc era and Federer in a weak Grass era. They would have still won the same ammount with stronger competition.....cause they are so damm good. Still it did not happen.....Sampras has a better dominance than Nadal.

what?? Sampras and Federer have both won 7 titles in 10 yrs since they won their first Wimbledon. Federer has been to one more final than Pete, and overall has been more dominant in his victories (less sets, games lost).

[MichaelNadal]

Gotta give this one to Pete.

[Hood_Man]

I suppose it's Sampras since both he and Nadal have managed win streaks of 4 wins and 3 wins (Sampras 3 and 4, Nadal 4 and 3), and each man's 7th win was a record (Nadal for having 7 French Opens, and Sampras for 13 majors).

Neither of them achieved 7 consecutive finals or 40 consecutive wins

[kishnabe]

Originally Posted by fed_rulz

what?? Sampras and Federer have both won 7 titles in 10 yrs since they won their first Wimbledon. Federer has been to one more final than Pete, and overall has been more dominant in his victories (less sets, games lost).

I mean when he started winning Wimbledon.
Sampras

93-95, 96...thank you Kracijek. 97-01.

Nadal

05-08, 09 thank you Soderling, 10-12.

Federer

03-07, 08 Damm you Nadal, 09(why Roddick ), 10 Stupid Bird, 11 Great Tsonga win. 12..Redemption Fed.

[90's Clay]

Well Pete had to go against Becker, Agassi, Courier, Goran, Rafter among others to get his wimbledon titles..

Thats a star studded cast of talent right there.. While Fed goes up against baby Nadal, Roddick, Murray etc. Not quite the opposition that Pete had on grass.

Then you got Nadal on clay.. Who outside of Djoker and Fed (who are pretty good dirtballers but neither great. Both their weakest surface) didn't have much to contend with in terms of great clay competition.

[fed_rulz]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Well Pete had to go against Becker, Agassi, Courier, Goran, Rafter among others to get his wimbledon titles..

Thats a star studded cast of talent right there.. While Fed goes up against baby Nadal, Roddick, Murray etc. Not quite the opposition that Pete had on grass.

Then you got Nadal on clay.. Who outside of Djoker and Fed (who are pretty good dirtballers but neither great. Both their weakest surface) didn't have much to contend with in terms of great clay competition.

yet Pete came a cropper against baby Fed... now why would that be?

the way I look at it, Nadal defeated Federer (the GOAT) in 6 of his wins; Federer defeated Nadal in 2 of his wins (another GOAT candidate). whom did Sampras defeat in 7 of his wins? Borg? himself? Laver? Federer? no other GOAT candidate to speak of.

so in terms of "dominance", Federer's easily surpasses Pete, and is more similar to Nadal's (though Nadal's is at a higher level).

[MTF07]

LOL, Since when is Courier a great grass courter? He was pretty lousy on grass. Roddick, Hewitt and Nadal are clearly superior grass players to Courier. Hewitt is more accomplished than Rafter on grass and Nadal is more accomplished on grass than anyone on that list minus Becker, who was past his prime when he played Pete.

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by MTF07

LOL, Since when is Courier a great grass courter? He was pretty lousy on grass. Roddick, Hewitt and Nadal are clearly superior grass players to Courier. Hewitt is more accomplished than Rafter on grass and Nadal is more accomplished on grass than anyone on that list minus Becker, who was past his prime when he played Pete.

Hes not a great grass courter.. But talent wise hes superior then 80-85 percent of the guys Fed beat to get his wimbledon titles regardless.

Thats questionable to say Roddick is better as well. How many wimbledon titles did Roddick win exactly? Roddick was better on hard courts than he was on grass.. As was Courier superior on other surfaces besides grass. But courier was clearly more talented then Roddick ever was. Not even close. Hewitt was FINISHED after 2005..

Hewitt got his wimbledon title during a completely CRAP 2002 wimbledon where a baby Nalbandian makes the finals. He is NOT superior to Rafter on grass who should have won 1-2 titles himself if not for Sampras or Goran completely zoning in in 2001

Even an old Becker is better then a freaking prime Roddick or Hewitt on grass. Please

And Nadal was a young buck when Fed beat him at wimbledon.. Not what he would later become there. Baby Nadal on grass better then Courier, Agassi, Goran, Rafter etc..? I dont think so. Maybe better then Courier.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by fed_rulz

yet Pete came a cropper against baby Fed... now why would that be?

the way I look at it, Nadal defeated Federer (the GOAT) in 6 of his wins; Federer defeated Nadal in 2 of his wins (another GOAT candidate). whom did Sampras defeat in 7 of his wins? Borg? himself? Laver? Federer?

so in terms of "dominance", Federer's easily surpasses Pete, and is more similar to Nadal's (though Nadal's is at a higher level).

The only thing that match proves is that Federer and Sampras are in the same class on Grass. On another day, Sampras could've won. It was that close. But yeah, it does negate the weak-era argument Sampras fans bring up.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Hes not a great grass courter.. But talent wise hes superior then 80-85 percent of the guys Fed beat to get his wimbledon titles regardless.

Thats questionable to say Roddick is better as well. How many wimbledon titles did Roddick win exactly? Roddick was better on hard courts than he was on grass.. As was Courier superior on other surfaces besides grass. But courier was clearly more talented then Roddick ever was. Not even close. Hewitt was FINISHED after 2005..

Hewitt got his wimbledon title during a completely CRAP 2002 wimbledon where a baby Nalbandian makes the finals. He is NOT superior to Rafter on grass who should have won 1-2 titles himself if not for Sampras or Goran completely zoning in in 2001

Even an old Becker is better then a freaking prime Roddick or Hewitt on grass. Please

"Baby" Nalbandian was supremely talented.

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

The only thing that match proves is that Federer and Sampras are in the same class on Grass. On another day, Sampras could've won. It was that close. But yeah, it does negate the weak-era argument Sampras fans bring up.

How that exactly? To beat a 30 year old Sampras (7-5 in the 5th) who was done on grass and would retire the year after?.

Not to mention Pete won ZERO titles in 2001 and had a 35-16 record. Which was freakin horrid for his standards. One match isn't much of a sample size.. Especially when one guy was playing above his years, and the other guy's career was winding down