Assessing the quality of sampras/federer opposition

George Turner

Hall of Fame
To be controversial, I'm gonna look at the opponents sampras and federer each faced during their wimbledon wins (quarter final onwards) to see who had the most impressive wins overall. i will give a mark of 5 for top quality opposition, 2 for good opposition, 1 for so-so opposition, 0 for rubbish opposition.

Sampras 1993.
QF Agassi; Not in his best form at this time. 2
SF Becker; Past his prime. 2
F Courier; Clay courter, though had beaten Edberg in semis. 1

1994.
QF Chang; Decent player, not good on grass. 0
SF Martin; The Berdych/Ferrer of the Sampras era. 1
F Ivanisevic; Not one of his best matches, a very boring final. 1

1995.
QF Shuzo Matsuoka; Who?? 0
SF Ivanisevic; Was in his best grass court form for this match. 2
F Becker; past prime, served 16 double faults and only got half his first serves in. 2

1997.
QF. Becker; Pretty washed up by this time. 1
SF. Todd Woodbridge; Much better at doubles than singles. 0
F. Pioline; Random finalist. 0

1998.
QF. Phillopousis; The inconsistent Kyrgios of the Sampras era, hard to score accurately. 1
SF. Henman; Nearly man of Wimbledon. 1
F. Ivanisevic; His last good performance (until 2001 Wimbledon). 2

1999.
QF. Phillopouis; retired while leading. Sampras admitted he dodged a bullet here. -1
SF. Henman; Still the nearly man of Wimbledon. 1
F. Agassi; in top form and Sampras dismantled him. His best Wimbledon win. 5

2000.
QF. Gambill; Random with a double handed forehand. 0
SF. Voltchkov; One of the worst players to reach a major semi. 0
F Rafter; A nearly great. 2

Total score; 23. Beating Agassi in 1999 made that his best Wimbledon win, while 1997 was his worst.

Federer 2003.
QF Schalken; About on par with Kevin Anderson. 0
SF. Roddick; His first major semi. 1
F. Phillopousis; Played well in this tournament inc. a win over Agassi. 1

2004.
QF Hewitt; Slightly past his peak but still quality on grass. 2
SF Grosjean; handy on grass, one of the best players not to reach a major final. 1
F Roddick; at his peak and played a fantastic match but Federer still won. 2

2005.
QF Gonzalez; Never amazing on grass. 0
SF Hewitt; Still ranked in the top 5. 2
F Roddick; 2

2006.
QF Antic; Liked playing on grass; beat Djokovic in the previous round! 1
SF Bjorkman; About as old as my Dad. 0
F. Nadal; Not at his grass peak but still a high standard and had 6-1 h2h vs Fed. 2

2007.
QF Ferrero; Past his prime and not a grass courter. 0
SF Gasquet; Out of his element here but had beaten Roddick previous round. 1
F Nadal; Was playing better than last year. 5

2009.
QF Karlovic; Serve bot. 0
SF Haas; Had a good tournament, beat Djokovic. 1
F. Roddick; Played well but Fed was lucky to win this match so only giving him one mark. 1

2012
QF Youzhny; Out of his depth. 0
SF Djokovic; Prime Djokovic; top of the rankings. 5
F Murray; Played well and the home favourite, top win for Fed. 5

2017.
QF Milos Raonic; Fortunate to beat Fed last year, was pretty disappointing here. 1
SF Tomas Berdych; Nearly man of this era. 1
F Cilic; Injured, didn't turn up. 0

Total score; 34. 2012 his best win beating Djokovic and Murray, 2009 probably his worst as it was his weakest final performance.

Feds score is inflated by 2012, apart from that there's not much difference in quality of opposition. If you looked at players like Mcenroe and Borg you'd probably find their opposition is of a similar caliber.
 
Last edited:

Bukmeikara

Legend
You are terrible at evaluating. Not to mention that you are punishing players because of their draws, something they cant control. Courier was the number 1 player at the time, his 3rd final in a row for the year and you are giving him the same points as Grosjean or Gasquet? How is Becker past prime in 1993 ?! Henman one point?! Djokovic is not 5 points in 2012, Karlovic is 1, Roddick is 5 in 09 an 2 in 03, Ferrero is 1. At least once each, Becker and Ivanisevic are 5, Chang is 1, Pioline is 1, Becker in 1997 is 2 given the stage, each time Henman is 2, Courier is 5 also
 
Last edited:

Druss

Hall of Fame
Becker in '93 was playing better than '95, so why the same score? Should be 3.
Ivanisevic '98 should be 3.
Roddick '04 was far better than '05, should be 3, Fed had to play his best to win that.
Hewitt was not past his peak in '04! He was still 24 and had one more year of peak play.
Karlovic '09 = 0? Seriously? The guy was a monster in that tournament, one of his best tournies ever.
Roddick '09 should be 3 or at least 2.
 

George Turner

Hall of Fame
You are terrible at evaluating. Not to mention that you are punishing players because of their draws, something they cant control. Courier was the number 1 player at the time, his 3rd final in a row for the year and you are giving him the same points as Grosjean or Gasquet? How is Becker past prime in 1993 ?! Henman one point?! Djokovic is not 5 points in 2012, Karlovic is 1, Roddick is 5 in 09 an 2 in 03, Ferrero is 1. At least once each, Becker and Ivanisevic are 5, Chang is 1, Pioline is 1, Becker in 1997 is 2 given the stage, each time Henman is 2, Courier is 5 also

Courier was a better player than Grosjean or Gasquet, but grass was his worst surface so that gets factored in. Apart from 1993 Courier never had a meaningful run at Wimbledon.

Becker was past his prime in 1993, he was never the same after losing the 1991 final to Stich. the *five point becker* was the man who had faced Edberg in three finals. The Becker that Sampras faced was no better than Prime Roddick/Hewitt.

And Djokovic reached all the other major finals in 2012 and was the defending Wimbledon Champion! That's top quality.

As i said, i'm gonna be controversal ;)
 

George Turner

Hall of Fame
Becker in '93 was playing better than '95, so why the same score? Should be 3.
Ivanisevic '98 should be 3.
Roddick '04 was far better than '05, should be 3, Fed had to play his best to win that.
Hewitt was not past his peak in '04! He was still 24 and had one more year of peak play.
Karlovic '09 = 0? Seriously? The guy was a monster in that tournament, one of his best tournies ever.
Roddick '09 should be 3 or at least 2.

I haven't given 3's, don't want to make things too complex :p

Roddick in 2009 was 2, i took a mark off because of Federer's somewhat lackluster performance and he needed some luck to win.

And yes Karlovic deserves his 0, he barely won a baseline rally in that match! When he's not playing the big four Most Karlovic matches are a toss up because of the way he plays, it so happened he called right in his previous matches. He played no better or worse than normal that tournament.
 

Bukmeikara

Legend
Courier was a better player than Grosjean or Gasquet, but grass was his worst surface so that gets factored in. Apart from 1993 Courier never had a meaningful run at Wimbledon.

Becker was past his prime in 1993, he was never the same after losing the 1991 final to Stich. the *five point becker* was the man who had faced Edberg in three finals. The Becker that Sampras faced was no better than Prime Roddick/Hewitt.

And Djokovic reached all the other major finals in 2012 and was the defending Wimbledon Champion! That's top quality.

As i said, i'm gonna be controversal ;)

Courier was the best player in the past 2-3 years, he beated Edberg in the SF and that win probably had a bigger impact for Sampras than Federer in 07 and yet you rate the first with 1 point and the second with 5.
Becker was 25 in 1993, after that he would still win Slams and reach Wimbledon finals. In his last last tournament ever, at 32, probably past his best physical shape he was still able to reach R16 at Wimbledon. Giving him 2 points in 1993 is just an insult, not to mention that this the first title for Pete and Becker had a legendary aura on the grass
Djokovic as great as he is, is not some legendary force on grass and back then his resume included "just" one title. In 2012 he had one title between AO and Wimbledon while Federer had 4 - give him 2 points or even 3 but 5?!
 

George Turner

Hall of Fame
Courier was the best player in the past 2-3 years, he beated Edberg in the SF and that win probably had a bigger impact for Sampras than Federer in 07 and yet you rate the first with 1 point and the second with 5.
Becker was 25 in 1993, after that he would still win Slams and reach Wimbledon finals. In his last last tournament ever, at 32, probably past his best physical shape he was still able to reach R16 at Wimbledon. Giving him 2 points in 1993 is just an insult, not to mention that this the first title for Pete and Becker had a legendary aura on the grass
Djokovic as great as he is, is not some legendary force on grass and back then his resume included "just" one title. In 2012 he had one title between AO and Wimbledon while Federer had 4 - give him 2 points or even 3 but 5?!

Clearly Edberg would have had more chance of beating Sampras than Courier did. That's just the way the draw happened, Courier overachieved by reaching that final.

I've watched Beckers last match (against Rafter at 1999 Wimbledon) he was shocking, was like watching Muhammad Ali's last fights. He only won 45% of his service points! Even the commentators were saying *in his Prime Becker would have made that volley!* etc. He also conceived a baby with someone who wasn't his wife during that time, so that Wimbledon was costly in more ways than one :p

And Djokovic 2012 was still top Quality even though he hadn't won as many titles as in 2011. from 2011 to mid 2016 he was clearly a 5.
 
Top