7-0 at Wimbledon or 9-0 at AO?

BGod

Legend
Opponents:

Novak
Murray x4
Nadal x2
Thiem
Tsonga
Medvedev

Sampras
Ivanisevic x2
Agassi
Becker
Rafter
Courier
Pioline

Also Pete 7 in 8 vs. Novak 9 in 14. Sampras only ever played in 14 total Wimbledons.

Gut says they're even.
 

GabeT

Legend
4-3 says other wise.
This is the nightmare Djokovic must have wanted to avoid. I.e Medvedev on a 20 match unbeaten run with two straight set demolitions over top 10 players.
Imagine say Nadal at the FO v Thiem who had in his past two rounds say hammered Tsitsipas and Rublev. Everyone would be saying Thiem to inflict first final defeat on the Great Nadal.
Djokovic has lost 3 of his last 4 matches to Medvedev. Medvedev will want to put right USO 2019. He also played a better Djokovic in 2019 in Australia.
It is hard to see anything other than a Medvedev win.
 

ND-13

Professional
yes I agree that from a numbers perspective 9 is greater than 7 but numbers don't always tell the story. for example Federer has 8 Wimbledon titles which is one more than Sampras’ 7 yet Sampras is the greater Wimbledon champion because Federer lost three finals all to the same player and someone who loses so many times to the same player of his own generation cannot be considered the greatest at that tournament.
Please consider adding 'as far as I am concerned' to your post.

You are making it sound like a universally accepted fact that 7-0 is more prestigious than 8-3

Making 11 finals is better than making 7 finals for anyone with common sense , as far as I am concerned.

As regards the original topic, AO is same as Wimbledon today and 9 AO is better than 7 Wimb. May be when the count is same, we can say the preference is to have more Wimbledons.
 
Last edited:

BGod

Legend
Please consider adding 'as far as I am concerned' to your post.

You are making it sound like a universally accepted fact that 7-0 is more prestigious than 8-3

Making 11 finals is better than making 7 finals for anyone with common sense , as far as I am concerned.

As regards the original topic, AO is same as Wimbledon today and 9 AO is better than 7 Wimb. May be when the count is same, we can say the preference is to have more Wimbledons.
7 in 8. Against all but one Hall of Fame player (Pioline). Although Fed's line between 2003-2012 was very comparable.
 

ND-13

Professional
7 in 8. Against all but one Hall of Fame player (Pioline). Although Fed's line between 2003-2012 was very comparable.
Even if it is 7 out of 7 it does not matter. Just extrapolate if the 2002 Sampras kept showing up at Wimb for the next 5 years.
 

Sunny Ali

Hall of Fame
In that case, Sampras lost to the guy who lost in three finals. Sampras was only 29 years then. If Sampras was so much better than Federer, why did he not win more than 7 finals?

The only thing that actually makes sense is to say that Sampras was better in his first seven finals than Federer since 7-0 > 6-1. At the end of the day, 8>7.

Spare the pathetic excuse about nutrition. In the 1900-1920 (before steroids were synthesised in labs) there were male and female bodybuilders who had impressive physiques. If those guys were good enough to do that with the nutrional knowledge of more than 100 years ago, Sampras has no excuses whatsoever. Not to say that building mass is the only physical trait a tennis player is looking for, cardio matters as well.

It's just that some idiots think that our nutrition knowledge has exploded since 2010 lol. Not the case at all. We're still in the dark for lots of things, one of them being nutrition.

Someone should actually make a thread on nutrition and examine what benefits 2000s players (which Federer belongs to) had relative to 1990s players. What 100% factual benefits (with no uncertainty around it) did those players have. Not much.

Sampras wasn't adviced to eat hamburgers from the McDonald's lol.
Machan ... what a post, what a wonderful post! (y)

1. Why did Sampras not try and win more than 7? For the same reason my neighbor retired at 62 but my colleague Mike continues to work at 65. Different strokes for different folks. Sampras was content and he called it a day. Remember, he very much still had it in him to win and went out at the absolute top with a US Open final victory. The point that I'm emphasizing is not the number of titles but the fact that there was nobody in the competition that could dominate him on grass unlike Federer who has been dominated by his chief rival.

2. Nutrition .. agreed but when did I ever claim Sampras suffered from a lack of it or that Federer benefitted from it? If you can point me to one single post where I've written so, I will wear a Federer is GOAT t-shirt and walk every street in my neighborhood! Not only that, I'll post pictures of it here :)

3. 8 > 7 ... agreed. Nowhere have I denied that one either. All I'm saying is if you look behind the numbers, Sampras > Federer (at Wimbledon, that is)
 

Sunny Ali

Hall of Fame
Please consider adding 'as far as I am concerned' to your post.

You are making it sound like a universally accepted fact that 7-0 is more prestigious than 8-3

Making 11 finals is better than making 7 finals for anyone with common sense , as far as I am concerned.

As regards the original topic, AO is same as Wimbledon today and 9 AO is better than 7 Wimb. May be when the count is same, we can say the preference is to have more Wimbledons.
Superb post Machan! (y) Some very fine quality posters in this forum :) Wonderful suggestion and I'll do as you've suggested :) Now let's address your points-

1. Making it sound like a universally accepted fact that 7-0 is more prestigious than 8-3- Sorry if I sounded that way. 8-3 is definitely more prestigious than 7-0!

2. 11 finals is indeed better than making 7 finals for anyone with common sense and I like to think I have some of it. Agreed!

3. 9 AOs is better than 7 Wimbledons- Agreed!

So having said that, I'm asking you- what is it you're disagreeing with me about? :)
 

BGod

Legend
Even if it is 7 out of 7 it does not matter. Just extrapolate if the 2002 Sampras kept showing up at Wimb for the next 5 years.
It's different when you have severe changes such as poly, surface and racquet size prevalences.

I'm sure if those issues weren't at hand Sampras would have played beyond 2002.
 

ND-13

Professional
Machan ... what a post, what a wonderful post! (y)

1. Why did Sampras not try and win more than 7? For the same reason my neighbor retired at 62 but my colleague Mike continues to work at 65. Different strokes for different folks. Sampras was content and he called it a day. Remember, he very much still had it in him to win and went out at the absolute top with a US Open final victory. The point that I'm emphasizing is not the number of titles but the fact that there was nobody in the competition that could dominate him on grass unlike Federer who has been dominated by his chief rival.

2. Nutrition .. agreed but when did I ever claim Sampras suffered from a lack of it or that Federer benefitted from it? If you can point me to one single post where I've written so, I will wear a Federer is GOAT t-shirt and walk every street in my neighborhood! Not only that, I'll post pictures of it here :)

3. 8 > 7 ... agreed. Nowhere have I denied that one either. All I'm saying is if you look behind the numbers, Sampras > Federer (at Wimbledon, that is)
Make a general poll for a random tournament for any sports without identifying player names. What would the generic public choose ? A player who makes 11 finals and wins 8 times or a player who makes it to finals only 7 times ?

Sometimes we let the names prejudice our opinion.

I am a Sampras fan as well but Federer has eclipsed Sampras long time back.

Sampras was phenomenal but he does not have the longevity and the results Federer has had.
 

ND-13

Professional
It's different when you have severe changes such as poly, surface and racquet size prevalences.

I'm sure if those issues weren't at hand Sampras would have played beyond 2002.
Sampras lost more than a step . He could have adapted to the changes in sport but that was not going to be the bottleneck.
 

itrium84

Professional
Agreed but some people have claimed Wimbledon is more prestigious than others so I decided to create this thread. Note though that I personally don't think Wimbledon is anything special. All slams are created equal :)
I believe it is special, but in a sense "1st among equals". It is most prestigious, but it's own goat-race value is exactly the same as other 3.
 

BGod

Legend
Make a general poll for a random tournament for any sports without identifying player names. What would the generic public choose ? A player who makes 11 finals and wins 8 times or a player who makes it to finals only 7 times ?

Sometimes we let the names prejudice our opinion.

I am a Sampras fan as well but Federer has eclipsed Sampras long time back.

Sampras was phenomenal but he does not have the longevity and the results Federer has had.
Okay but how about Sampras being pushed to 5 sets only once in his 7 clean finals? While the other guy won 2 five setters and lost 3 others. How about three straight set victories compared to two despite an additional title? It's not like comparing Montana to Brady, it's like comparing Michael Jordan to LeBron James.
 

Sunny Ali

Hall of Fame
Make a general poll for a random tournament for any sports without identifying player names. What would the generic public choose ? A player who makes 11 finals and wins 8 times or a player who makes it to finals only 7 times ?

Sometimes we let the names prejudice our opinion.

I am a Sampras fan as well but Federer has eclipsed Sampras long time back.

Sampras was phenomenal but he does not have the longevity and the results Federer has had.
Wonderful post Machan (y)
 

Sunny Ali

Hall of Fame
Okay but how about Sampras being pushed to 5 sets only once in his 7 clean finals? While the other guy won 2 five setters and lost 3 others. How about three straight set victories compared to two despite an additional title? It's not like comparing Montana to Brady, it's like comparing Michael Jordan to LeBron James.
Great post! (y)
 

mr tonyz

Professional
You won't believe me, but I was considering doing another thread about who was greater of the two. Every time Novak Djokovic gets within 2 slams of Nadal, I consider the topic.
100+ Weeks @ #1 + 5 Tour Finals + an extra M1000

According to Ultimate Tennis Statistics those are worth around .

Slams 8 points each (Nadal =+16 points)

Tour Finals 6 points for a perfect run (Djoker = +27 points)

Weeks @ #1 = 1 point for each 10-week-block (Djoker = +10 points)

Masters 1000 4 points each (Djoker = +4)

Nadal = 16 points
Djoker = 41 points

That is a clear advantage for Djoker & it really goes to show how slam orientated these forums are. 5 tour finals & 100 weeks & counting of Weeks @ #1 is a huge advantage for Djoker.

We may not all agree on the worth of non-slam tournaments + rankings but they have their own worth & with such a sheer amount of non-slam pluses in Djoker's favour he @ least has to be in the discussion with Nadal as it already stands.
 

daphne

Semi-Pro
Wimbledon remains the pinnacle of the sport, no matter what others might state.

PETE's perfect 7 are therefore roughly equal to Djoker's 9 at the AO.
I think you are absolutely right and for Djok NOT to be roughly equal to Pete's perfect 7 he should win another 11 AOs in the process to better it. At least!
 

ND-13

Professional
Okay but how about Sampras being pushed to 5 sets only once in his 7 clean finals? While the other guy won 2 five setters and lost 3 others. How about three straight set victories compared to two despite an additional title? It's not like comparing Montana to Brady, it's like comparing Michael Jordan to LeBron James.
Sampras performance in their 20’s was better then Federer performance

If Federer reached and won 7 titles and no other finals then that comparison makes sense

The way I look at it - Sampras would have made 4 to 5 4R/QF if he stayed on tour .- and not all those wins and finals Fed made in his 30’s
 

Karma Tennis

Hall of Fame
6 Roland Garros Titles is more impressive than anything else when comparing single Major Tournaments. Red Clay is the ultimate test of Tennis because it challenges so many of the player's skills encompassing athleticism, endurance, stroke technique, footwork, point planning, shot decision making and mental prowess.

Interesting to note that both Sampras and Federer were not able to master Roland Garros for different reasons.

Also interesting to note that Borg was able to master both of those surfaces at a time when Grass played much faster and there were Grass court and Clay court specialist who often did not play or perfrom well on their non preferred surface.
 

PETEhammer

Professional
6 Roland Garros Titles is more impressive than anything else when comparing single Major Tournaments. Red Clay is the ultimate test of Tennis because it challenges so many of the player's skills encompassing athleticism, endurance, stroke technique, footwork, point planning, shot decision making and mental prowess.

Interesting to note that both Sampras and Federer were not able to master Roland Garros for different reasons.

Also interesting to note that Borg was able to master both of those surfaces at a time when Grass played much faster and there were Grass court and Clay court specialist who often did not play or perfrom well on their non preferred surface.
Indeed, Borg is unique in tennis history. While perhaps not the GOAT, there is no one with his unique ability to dominate the diametrically different natural surfaces, in a day and age when they played so differently and his natural style was unsuited to grass.
 

FRV4

Semi-Pro
Superb question Gabe! The answer is yes, I would have thought better of Federer because then he would not have lost those three finals to Djokovic so there would have been no way for me to know that Djokovic is a better player than Federer on grass. In the absence of such data, I would have had to rely on the number of Wimbledon titles won by each player and by virtue of Federer winning more titles, I would have concluded he was the better player.

But now I'm in a dilemma because if I say Federer is the greater grass player, my neighbor who I discuss tennis with a lot says "so he's the greatest of all time but can't beat another from his own generation" and laughs at me.
Jesus, you probably think Joe Montana is better than Brady too. Federer was 33 when he started losing to Djokovic at Wimbledon.
 

Eren

Professional
Machan ... what a post, what a wonderful post! (y)

1. Why did Sampras not try and win more than 7? For the same reason my neighbor retired at 62 but my colleague Mike continues to work at 65. Different strokes for different folks. Sampras was content and he called it a day. Remember, he very much still had it in him to win and went out at the absolute top with a US Open final victory. The point that I'm emphasizing is not the number of titles but the fact that there was nobody in the competition that could dominate him on grass unlike Federer who has been dominated by his chief rival.

2. Nutrition .. agreed but when did I ever claim Sampras suffered from a lack of it or that Federer benefitted from it? If you can point me to one single post where I've written so, I will wear a Federer is GOAT t-shirt and walk every street in my neighborhood! Not only that, I'll post pictures of it here :)

3. 8 > 7 ... agreed. Nowhere have I denied that one either. All I'm saying is if you look behind the numbers, Sampras > Federer (at Wimbledon, that is)
I wasn't clear on number 2. I'll give you that. My objective was to prevent others from bringing up that excuse. I forgot to mention that I did not specifically meant you lol.

1. Look behind the numbers yourself. Your perception of reality is only one part. Why did Sampras not reach another final at Wimbledon despite trying to do so and lost to George Bastl in the first round or so. If Sampras is truly better than Federer, he would have won more finals than Federer. In fact, sinds h2h is important to you and age is irrelevant, 1-0 Federer it is. If Sampras went on to play, Federer would not have trouble with that Sampras.

Don't Forget, before winning that USO 2002, he got the beating of his lifetime against Hewitt in the USO final, a year prior to his win. Before that, he lost to Safin in the 2000 USO final after having won Wimbledon. If they can win, and Fed has won against him at Wimbledon, it makes sense to believe that Fed would have won if they both went on to play each other at Wimledon (of course, we will never know for sure).

3. The only thing Sampras did better than Federer at Wimbledon is that he was better than Fed in his first 7 finals. Nothing more, nothing less.
 

Eren

Professional
This hypothetical stuff is odd. For Djokovic every year is he will do this wont do that and every year bar 2011 and 2015 he falls short of these projected goals.
He is too far behind Nadal and Federer. The assumption that the Next Gen are just walkovers is so misguided. After the next FO Nadal probably has a 3 slam lead. Im not saying he will but he is as much a lock at RG as any sportsperson is at any event. There is no way Djokovic pulls back a 3 Major gap.
Djokovic messed up last year.
Djokovic will eclipse Fed for sure. Not sure about Nadal's total. If Nadal wins USO, he will end as GOAT imo.
 

Eren

Professional
Please consider adding 'as far as I am concerned' to your post.

You are making it sound like a universally accepted fact that 7-0 is more prestigious than 8-3 8-4

Making 11 12 finals is better than making 7 finals for anyone with common sense , as far as I am concerned.

As regards the original topic, AO is same as Wimbledon today and 9 AO is better than 7 Wimb. May be when the count is same, we can say the preference is to have more Wimbledons.
FTFY
 

Eren

Professional
They’re the same.

Btw, Djokovic's bar is highlighted. IMO, it doesn't make sense. Even if he is the one who most recently won the title at the AO, they should have highlighted Nadal's bar since that is the pinnacle in all sports.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
yes I agree that from a numbers perspective 9 is greater than 7 but numbers don't always tell the story. for example Federer has 8 Wimbledon titles which is one more than Sampras’ 7 yet Sampras is the greater Wimbledon champion because Federer lost three finals all to the same player and someone who loses so many times to the same player of his own generation cannot be considered the greatest at that tournament.
First of all, Fed is 6 years older than Novak so they're hardly the same generation (part of the same era at best). Secondly if Fed's losses to Novak count against him then we also include Pete's loss to Fed at Wimbledon where he get out-clutched and beaten at his own game by a teenager while he was the defending champ going for 5 Wimbledons in a row and younger than Fed was in any of his Wimbledon finals with Novak.

Also, Fed did 5 in a row at Wimbledon which Pete never managed. It's a mark against him as both Borg and Fed were able to do so.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
It's different when you have severe changes such as poly, surface and racquet size prevalences.

I'm sure if those issues weren't at hand Sampras would have played beyond 2002.
Agassi was able to adapt to them quite fine. Sampras could have too (he did win the slam tourney he played), he just lost motivation and was facing a pack of young, hungry players.

If we're nitpicking and evaluating Fed's entire career on grass by his losses in his 30s then Sampras doesn't really get extra credit for retiring early. Nor does he get a pass for allowing teenage Fed to beat him at Centre Court as the defending champ.
 

Karma Tennis

Hall of Fame
Joe Montana is better than Brady too.
Here is Australia, NFL fans have heard about Montana and Brady.

But the most famous male American athletes to have entered the psyche of the average Australian person (not just sports fans) are (not in any particular order) ...

Jimmy Connors / John McEnroe / Pete Sampras / Andre Agassi
Mark Spitz / Carl Lewis / Michael Johnson
Michael Jordan / Magic Johnson
Joe Namath
Don Drysdale
and a bunch of Golfers (inc. Palmer, Niklaus, Tiger Woods).

Now the two odd men out of this bunch are Namath and Drysdale. And you know why? ...it had nothing to do with their sporting prowess because no Australians had any access to NFL or American Major League Baseball back when those two guys were doing their thing.

Namath and Drysdale are widely recognised by a huge number of Australians in their 50s and 60s simply because they both appeared on famous episodes of "The Brady Bunch" back in the 1970s when it was one of the highest rating shows on Australian television.
 

Karma Tennis

Hall of Fame
If we're nitpicking and evaluating Fed's entire career on grass by his losses in his 30s
Taking age into account always muddys the waters.

However, it also should be pointed out that Roger has never beaten Rafa at Roland Garros in a Final and he hasn't beaten Novak at the AO in a Final. Both Rafa and Novak have beaten Roger in a Wimbledon Final (and Novak has done it three times.)

I imagine Roger would have easily accounted for guys like Philippoussis and Roddick on Red Clay.
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
You people do have issues with the facts.

FACT: nobody dreams of winning the AO. FACT: Plenty of players grew up dreaming of winning Wimbledon

Win Wimbledon once and you're a legend for life, just look at Goran. Is Thomas Johansson a legend? I. Don't. Think. So.
True, Wimbledon has had a more glorified past but since the mid eighties, the AO has had the same top competition as Wimby, FO and USO, therefore, the slams should have equal weight accomplishment wise.
 

Nole_King

Professional
How is that better than winning 7 titles in 8 years as opposed to 7 in 10 and 8 in 15? Feels like Fedfan logic.
Pete dominated Wimbledon more than Fed did till the time he was active ... 7 out of 8 finals is a testimony. However Fed maintained a high level at Wimbledon for a much much longer time losing out narrowly on 3 separate occasions. Pete on the other hand couldn't handle Federer and Bastl once he was not that good. Federer had it in him to not only compete against other GOAT candidates but win an additional one. So yes, a longer successful career edges Federer ahead of Pete as far as GOAT on grass is concerned. Unfortunately, these days some Nole and Nadal fans want to dispute otherwise as Fed not being GOAT on any surface supports their respective arguments of their idol being GOAT.
 

Beckerserve

Hall of Fame
For a guy who’s claimed he’s never been wrong, you are wrong an awful lot.
When did Djokovic have another 3 slam season bud? Please correct me if i am wrong but not in his 30s?
I have not been wrong on anything of note. FO 2020 is my happy place on this argument as every Djokovic fan scores an own goal accusing anyone else of being wrong. This is why certain Djokovic fans disappeared for 3 months lol.
 
Top