Federer and Sampras and losses in Big Matches

[McEnroeisanartist]

I thought it would be interesting to compare who Federer and Sampras lost to in big matches, defined as a Grand Slam final or semifinal.

Federer has lost 15 big matches. He has lost to 4 different players: Nadal (, Djokovic (5), Safin, and Del Potro.

Sampras lost 9 big matches. He lost to 7 different players: Ivansevic, Edberg (2), Agassi (2), Kafelnikov, Rafter, Safin, and Hewitt.

Nadal has lost 8 big matches. He lost to 5 different players: Federer (2), Djokovic (3), Tsonga, Murray, and Del Potro.

Borg lost 6 big matches. He lost to 2 different players: Connors (3), McEnroe (3)

[jokinla]

When you make it to EVERY semi, then your going to lose more.

[Pickle9]

Originally Posted by jokinla

When you make it to EVERY semi, then your going to lose more.

10 GOATing

[rofl_copter3]

Sampras never would have had the opportunity to lose to Nadal in a big match on clay

[heninfan99]

To me this shows the depth of talent in Sampras' era. Is that your point???

[Steve0904]

Originally Posted by heninfan99

To me this shows the depth of talent in Sampras' era. Is that your point???

Or it shows how much Sampras sucked to lose to all those different players. Also notice that 3 of those players are not even in Sampras's "era"

[Steve0904]

Originally Posted by jokinla

When you make it to EVERY semi, then your going to lose more.

And you're going to WIN more!

[Vrad]

It shows Sampras' absolute inability to do anything on clay.

Pretty much every "Sampras is superior" claim (H2H against biggest opponent, "not lost as many big matches") evaporates if Federer had never made it past a FO semi-final like Sampras.

IOW, according to Samprastards, if Federer sucked at clay, he would have been a much better player.

[heninfan99]

Slam champions nonetheless.

Originally Posted by Steve0904

Or it shows how much Sampras sucked to lose to all those different players. Also notice that 3 of those players are not even in Sampras's "era"

[McEnroeisanartist]

Yes, my point is obviously how few guys have beat Federer in a big match. It is amazing that Sampras had losses to so many players in big matches.

We shall see in roughly 12 hours or so if Murray will be added to Federer's list. I hope not.

[Phoenix1983]

Originally Posted by McEnroeisanartist

Yes, my point is obviously how few guys have beat Federer in a big match. It is amazing that Sampras had losses to so many players in big matches.

We shall see in roughly 12 hours or so if Murray will be added to Federer's list. I hope not.

Borg is the best from this perspective - only ever lost against Mac or Connors.

[Devilito]

Originally Posted by Vrad

It shows Sampras' absolute inability to do anything on clay.

Pretty much every "Sampras is superior" claim (H2H against biggest opponent, "not lost as many big matches") evaporates if Federer had never made it past a FO semi-final like Sampras.

IOW, according to Samprastards, if Federer sucked at clay, he would have been a much better player.

You can’t compare surface, style and depth of field dynamics in the 90s with what’s going on now. Tennis as a sport changes far too often in terms of equipment, surfaces and importance of certain tournaments to be able to compare players from different generations. The importance of the Australian Open and the focus on “slam count” wasn’t even a factor in tennis until the mid 90s. But if you knew anything about tennis, you’d already know that right?

[Towser83]

Originally Posted by McEnroeisanartist

I thought it would be interesting to compare who Federer and Sampras lost to in big matches, defined as a Grand Slam final or semifinal.

Federer has lost 15 big matches. He has lost to 4 different players: Nadal (, Djokovic (5), Safin, and Del Potro.

Sampras lost 9 big matches. He lost to 7 different players: Ivansevic, Edberg (2), Agassi (2), Kafelnikov, Rafter, Safin, and Hewitt.

Nadal has lost 8 big matches. He lost to 4 different players: Federer (2), Djokovic (3), Tsonga, and Del Potro.

Borg lost 6 big matches. He lost to 2 different players: Connors (3), McEnroe (3)

Nadal also lost to Murray in a US open semi.

[Steve0904]

Originally Posted by heninfan99

Slam champions nonetheless.

Oh sure. It was a bit of a joke. Sampras obviously doesn't "suck".

In regards to Borg, as great as he was, you have to feel like he would've lost more "big" matches had he not basically retired at 26. He was awesome. I just thought I'd point that out.

[Steve0904]

Originally Posted by Devilito

You can’t compare surface, style and depth of field dynamics in the 90s with what’s going on now. Tennis as a sport changes far too often in terms of equipment, surfaces and importance of certain tournaments to be able to compare players from different generations. The importance of the Australian Open and the focus on “slam count” wasn’t even a factor in tennis until the mid 90s. But if you knew anything about tennis, you’d already know that right?

Oh please. Stop making excuses for Petros.

[Devilito]

Originally Posted by Steve0904

Oh please. Stop making excuses for Petros.

As the best player to ever pick up a tennis racquet, Petros doesn’t need to be excused for anything. On indoor carpet, Prime Petros would roll Djokovic, Nadal and Murray like they were 3.0 ntrp tennis warehouse posters.

[Steve0904]

Originally Posted by Devilito

As the best player to ever pick up a tennis racquet, Petros doesn’t need to be excused for anything. On indoor carpet, Prime Petros would roll Djokovic, Nadal and Murray like they were 3.0 ntrp tennis warehouse posters.

I've noticed you've left out a better player than Petros. Why is that?

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by Devilito

As the best player to ever pick up a tennis racquet, Petros doesn’t need to be excused for anything. On indoor carpet, Prime Petros would roll Djokovic, Nadal and Murray like they were 3.0 ntrp tennis warehouse posters.

Petros's record at Roland Garros in his last six appearances there:
5 wins
6 losses

[fed_rulz]

Originally Posted by Devilito

As the best player to ever pick up a tennis racquet, Petros doesn’t need to be excused for anything. On indoor carpet, Prime Petros would roll Djokovic, Nadal and Murray like they were 3.0 ntrp tennis warehouse posters.

like he did to wayne Ferreira in 1995?

[90's Clay]

Fed struggled with 36 year old Sampras indoors in 2007 for about 3 of the 4 exos. Pete's serve was really cooking and Fed could barely get any rally or ROS going.

Prime Sampras THUMPS Prime Fed indoors. Especially carpet (a bit like the speed of Macau when Pete took Fed out in straights in 2007). Anyone who says otherwise is a moron.

Fed's main indoor competition were pushers. Pete's main competition indoors were aggressive players like Andre, and an indoor GOAT Becker