In the most important match of the year, SAMPRAS is KING

[Blocker]

Every sport has its one-off event which is considered the holy grail event for that sport, the blue ribbon event so to speak. Soccer has the world cup, cycling has the Tour De France, etc etc. These are the events players in their chosen field want to win above everything else. In tennis, that event is Wimbledon.

Wimbledon is the most important tennis event in the world. So it goes without saying, Wimbledon Centre Court is the most important court in the world and the mens’ final at Wimbledon is the single most important tennis match at Wimbledon, and therefore, the single most important match of the year. If there is one single match in tennis which signifies greatness, it is the Wimbledon final.

Now I can only go by facts, but once in the mens’ final at Wimbledon, Sampras was unbeatable. 7 from 7 (100%). Only Federer (7 from 8 = 87.5%) and Borg (5 from 6 = 83.33%) come close to matching Sampras in this, the most important tennis match of the year. But both still fall short. Now before someone decides to mention Cash or Krajicek who are both 1 from 1, obviously I’m talking about players who made the most important match of the year a number of times. I’m excluding Bill Tilden because he pretty much played the challenge round only.

Now some of you will no doubt point to the fact that Federer made one extra final or that Sampras lost to Krajicek when he was at his peak, but here is what I have to say to that.

1) Sampras was always suspect in the first week and a bit of Wimbledon. All the top players were. Because, and this is directed to alot of you jonny come latelies, believe it or not, Wimbledon once had draws which were littered with floaters, where any player outside of the top 100 could beat anyone in the draw. That’s right, tennis was not always about one generic boring as **** game style with homogenised courts and a top 4 which made the semis of 90 per cent of all slams. Believe it or not, all the top players back in the day talked about surviving the first week because the depth on grass was so much deeper. But the bottom line is, once Sampras got 5 matches under his belt, once he was in the groove, once he was full steam ahead, he was unbeatable in the most important match of the year. He never lost a semi final or the final, the most important match of the year. He met 5 different players, all with different game styles, and beat them all. If I had to put my life in the hands of one player in one match in any era, it would be Sampras in the Wimbledon final. And I include in that match-up any player as his opponent, be it Nadal, Federer, Murray, Roddick, Laver, Tilden, Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Wilander, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Agassi, Stich, Cash, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, take your pick. Quite simply, Sampras is the king of the most important match of the year and he wiped/would have wiped them all in the final. Nadal in the FO final would be a very very very close second, but with Nadal, he’s pretty much only beaten his bunny Federer in the final and a couple of others. Plus, as I said before, Wimbledon is Wimbledon, the pressure is just so much more than the FO. That’s why I would put my life in Sampras/WF ahead of Nadal/FOF.

2) Yes, Federer has made an extra final, but you would think that after beating Nadal in the 2 previous finals, the second one being very fortunate for him, he would have beaten him again. You would think that after having 6 matches under his belt, him being this era’s Wimbledon great, he would have beaten Nadal. But no, Nadal figured him out in the most important match of the year. Unlike Sampras, he was beatable. And therein lies the difference, Sampras never got figured out in the most important match of the year. If Sampras had made 8 finals, he would have won them all. Heck, if Sampras made 10 finals, he would have won them all. But as I said, he and the other top players were always a bit suspect pre the semis so he didn’t always make it. But once there, in the biggest match of the year, he was superman. He was undefeated….in the biggest match of the year.

Mods, please close this thread now because there is no argument to my OP and I suspect the trolls and *******s will be out in force to troll my OP when quite frankly it is not a trollable piece.

[Prisoner of Birth]

1. Federer won as many "most important matches" as Sampras did.

2. Federer beat Sampras at the "biggest stage in the world of Tennis".


Thread fail.

[-RF-]

[SLD76]

Sampras is irrelevant to the GOAT discussion now.

Sorry.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by -RF-

Federer versus Sampras at Roland Garros. 6-0 6-0 6-0. Sampras won 5 matches and lost 6 in his six appearances there from 1997 to 2002. What a joke!

[Bobby Jr]

Originally Posted by Blocker

Now I can only go by facts, but once in the mens’ final at Wimbledon, Sampras was unbeatable. 7 from 7 (100%). Only Federer (7 from 8 = 87.5%)....

This is where your post loses its veneer of coherence.

Sampras didn't play 7 Wimbledons. He played 14. He won half of them.

Federer has, so far, played 17 and also won half of them.

If you're trying to make a credible, persuasive point you can't just wish away poor results because they don't suit your argument.

[helloworld]

Originally Posted by Bobby Jr

This is where your post loses all intelligence.

Sampras didn't play 7 Wimbledons. He played 14. He won half of them.

Federer has, so far, played 17 and also won half of them.

If you're trying to make a credible, persuasive point you can't just wish away poor results because they don't suit your argument.

You should read again. He said once Sampras reached the finals, he was unbeatable, not how many attempts he had in his career.

[Bobby Jr]

Originally Posted by helloworld

You should read again. He said once Sampras reached the finals, he was unbeatable, not how many attempts he had in his career.

My point stands. Saying it's about once he reached the finals bears about as much relevance as saying a head-to-head should count in the ranking system.

Using a selective, finite set of available results to demonstrate a point is the domain of kooks. A player's finals winning percentage is actually irrelevant in demonstrating greatness - as the examples of Cash and Krajicek show*. The amount of wins matters. If someone took 20 attempts to achieve a win their definitive achievement is the same as someone who took one attempt to win.

(*notwithstanding that neither 1 nor 7 are statistically relevant sample sizes in the real world)

[batz]

Originally Posted by SLD76

Sampras is irrelevant to the GOAT discussion now.

Sorry.

That's about the size of it. Sad for some people, but no less true for that.

[Warmaster]

2013 promises to be a gruesome battle between Sampras 'fans' and the *** legion, fighting valiantly over the coveted 'Troll of the year' award. Stay tuned!

[pringles]

This is why Sampras never lost a Wimbledon final:
-the grass was fast so he didn't have to play from the baseline near as much as the current players have to
-he never played anyone improving that much every year
-he never played anyone with a lefty forehand like Nadal - Sampras would absolutely hate playing Nadal on EVERY surface
-he never played anyone who was such a bad match-up for him (Ivanisevic was lefty but he didn't have a high-kicking forehand and played flat most of the time, not to mention he was a consistent choker)
-he never had mental issues against another player because he never bothered to show up anywhere unless he was playing well. Heck, he never bothered to show up on clay AT ALL, let alone be beaten 3 times every year on the surface prior to Wimbledon.
-he never played an excellent grass courter that wouldn't wilt under the pressure all the time (see Ivanisevic, Rafter, Agassi - as good as they were they choked in big points. Something Nadal (and Djokvoic) would NEVER do
-he never played a good grass courter who was at least 5 years younger than he was (apart Philippoussiss in one match in 1999 where Mark had to retire after taking the first set in emphatic fashion)
-when Sampras felt below par he just didn't make the final. Period. (See 1996 when he got routined by Krajicek). Something that would never happen to Federer who in or out of form was routinely making every final.
-he often received gifts like facing Cedric Pioline in one of those finals or someone ranked 250 in a Wimbledon semi-final, Federer out of the 8 finals only played Nadal, Roddick, Murray and Philippoussis (someone Peteta**s would consider tough) once.

[Tennis_Hands]

Originally Posted by Bobby Jr

This is where your post loses its veneer of coherence.

Sampras didn't play 7 Wimbledons. He played 14. He won half of them.

Federer has, so far, played 17 and also won half of them.

If you're trying to make a credible, persuasive point you can't just wish away poor results because they don't suit your argument.

Say what?

[underground]

1. Federer actually beat Sampras himself in Wimbledon 2001, when Sampras was still the defending champion.
2. Federer did make 1 extra final, it's a valid point and I don't see why OP is neglecting it. It means that Federer has 55 matches at Wimbledon in 8 years while Sampras only won 53 in 8 years.
3. Federer managed to win Wimbledon based on S&V (2003) and baseline game.
4. Federer has managed to win Wimbledon 10 years after his 1st, Sampras doesn't have this longevity.

[DropShotArtist]

Come on guys, give the Samprastards a break. Sampras is completely irrelevant now, but his ardent fans are still people, they still want to feel like they exist. Let's take it easy on them and give them a hug instead of throwing the truth in their face.

[Gizo]

Federer's record in grand slam finals away from clay is 16-3 (84.2%), while Sampras's was 14-4 (77.8%).

On clay, if Sampras was to play in a big RG final or semi against Bruguera for instance (who was a difficult match-up for him even on hard courts), I doubt he would have been anywhere near as clutch as he was in a big Wimbledon match against Ivanisevic or US Open match against Agassi. It's easier for players to be mental giants at tournaments and on surfaces where they are comfortable. It's much more difficult to be mentally clutch at settings which don't suit their game so much.

Also I will never understand the argument that a 7-0 record in Wimbledon finals is better than a 7-1 one. LOL as if Federer's Wimbledon record would have been enhanced had he lost his 2008 semi against Safin for instance and not reached Nadal.

[westside]

Originally Posted by Tennis_Hands

Say what?

The final against Roddick counts for at least 2.

[Bobby Jr]

Originally Posted by Tennis_Hands

Say what?

Doh... Late night posting sorry. I meant he's also played 14 Wimbledons and won half of them.

[Bobby Jr]

Originally Posted by Gizo

Also I will never understand the argument that a 7-0 record in Wimbledon finals is better than a 7-1 one. LOL as if Federer's Wimbledon record would have been enhanced had he lost his 2008 semi against Safin for instance and not reached Nadal.

Exactly... When we look at non slam winning players we give more kudos to players who've been in a slam final (Tsonga or Berdych) relative to those who haven't (Ferrer etc)...because making a slam final is a partial achievement in-itself.

But when comparing people who have won many of them their losing final showings apparently diminish the value of the wins they did achieve in the eyes of Samprastards. 7 wins and 7 finals is not as successful as 7 wins and 8 finals in tennis. The final winning percentages don't matter unless you're trying to show something else like clutchness or how easy an era was and lots of other similarly subjective topics.

[fed_rulz]

I heard Sampras was KING at RG as well. He has never lost a final!!

[Onehandedbackhand]

Pete Sampras is a top five consideration for GOAT simply for Wimbledon, and the US Open, but he's not anywhere near the GOAT.

To me it's

1. Rod Laver - Nuff said
2. Roger Federer - Seems to break a record a week since his 28th birthday, and some of those will never be broken again.

3. Bjorn Borg - His dominance on clay, and his success at Wimbledon for just ten years on tour, is sick.

4. Rafael Nadal - 11 Grand Slams, one loss in the French Open ever.

5. Pete Sampras - 7 for 7 in Wimby finals, and the US Open speaks for itself.

Then I have Connors and McEnroe under him.

Much as I liked him in his time, and as much as I have him at #5, I look, in hindsight, at Pete as someone who was really the product of his surface. Tremendous serve, wonderful backhand, great forehand, but I feel like the changed surfaces would clobber him now, and in this era, Roger would eat him for lunch. Fed can play on anything, as can Rafa. Both of them can have an off day serving and still have no trouble with an opponent. When Pete had his first and second round troubles, it usually was his serve, along with the aforementioned depth in the tournament, that caused his problems. He HAD to have his serve on to dominate anyone.

Maybe that's why when I do watch older tennis, I can watch Borg forever, McEnroe forever, Connors forever, Vitas forever, and even Becker, Lendl, and Agassi forever...but I can't really watch a ton of Sampras anymore. It feels like when you are a kid, and you had that favorite show, and you get older and go back to it and wonder how stupid you had to be for liking that stuff. Liking Pete isn't stupid, nor was he a schlub player, but he's definitely not what history makes him, IMO.