Best slam winner in each year since big 3 era started?

[RS]

Agassi was in clearly better form than Sampras in either 95/00 encounter yet needed a netcord return in crunch time to edge Pete, meh. Reverse the form advantage and I reckon the matches are less close in Sampras's favour than they were in Agassi's favour as they happened. All this 'comfort' dissipates when PETE is involved. We've seen that in Mugiami, Agassi leads 6 titles to 2 but no question whose peak is higher and it's not Andre. (Darkly hilarious how much more you're willing to grant Federer than anyone else, reasonably unbiased truth-seeking dude.)

Yeah I'd forgotten about Agassi's 1988 RG, his first top season would actually be his best form there I suppose (can't say much of 1999 due to being stomped for the first two sets by Medvedev, try that against Wilander and you lose in four sets max), pushed Wilander well for four sets before petering out but Sampras would still have more trouble if it reached the fifth set and most likely loses in four anyway, so yes.

@metsman what are you doing standing by while PETE is being slandered so help me restore some justice in these godforsaken lands.





Losing the first set + three tiebreaks means no threat, interesting. Rochus was up 4-1 in the third set according to a match report. Safin was always the better player but made a show of wasting opportunities, 1/18 on BPs lal. Good thing he broke exactly when needed most.

You really changed the way to speak to other users from 2-3 years ago

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

You really changed the way to speak to other users from 2-3 years ago

MUGS, MUGS all around. Gotta fall in line, no?

 

[abmk]

Agassi was in clearly better form than Sampras in either 95/00 encounter yet needed a netcord return in crunch time to edge Pete, meh. Reverse the form advantage and I reckon the matches are less close in Sampras's favour than they were in Agassi's favour as they happened. All this 'comfort' dissipates when PETE is involved. We've seen that in Mugiami, Agassi leads 6 titles to 2 but no question whose peak is higher and it's not Andre. (Darkly hilarious how much more you're willing to grant Federer than anyone else, reasonably unbiased truth-seeking dude.)

why unquestionably?
Pete beat Agassi at Miami 94 and Agassi beat Pete at Miami 95.
Also Sampras has 3 titles at Miami, not 2.

there's a difference b/w facing Sampras on medium-fast to faster court to facing him on a slower court or specifically USO to AO here. You get more breathing room in the latter though obviously its still tough.

Yeah I'd forgotten about Agassi's 1988 RG, his first top season would actually be his best form there I suppose (can't say much of 1999 due to being stomped for the first two sets by Medvedev, try that against Wilander and you lose in four sets max), pushed Wilander well for four sets before petering out but Sampras would still have more trouble if it reached the fifth set and most likely loses in four anyway, so yes.

yeah, Andriy Medvedev was too good in windy conditions. remember he beat prime Kuerten in straight sets in QF in windy conditions. He was really good in the 1st 2 sets and Agassi was struggling vs him+the conditions. Agassi had also beaten defending champion Moya.
Agassi has the 88 RG run losing to Wilander in 5 in semi. 90 run beating defending champ Chang and Svensson before falling to Gomez
Also 91 RG run losing to Courier in 5 sets in the final (up 2 sets to 1)
92 RG where he beat Sampras in straights, but ended up losing easily to best form Courier
Just too many good runs from him. Sampras' doesn't compare.
Would've done better in RG 95 if not for being hampered vs Kafel.

Losing the first set + three tiebreaks means no threat, interesting. Rochus was up 4-1 in the third set according to a match report. Safin was always the better player but made a show of wasting opportunities, 1/18 on BPs lal. Good thing he broke exactly when needed most.

clear threat of losing.

 

[ibbi]

2003: Federer, Wimbledon
2004: Federer, Wimbledon
2005: This is tough...
2006: Nadal, Roland Garros
2007: Federer, Australian Open
2008: Nadal, Roland Garros
2009: Nadal, Australian Open
2010: Nadal, US Open
2011: Djokovic, Australian Open
2012: Djokovic, Australian Open
2013: Nadal, Roland Garros
2014: This one is also pretty up in the air...
2015: Djokovic, Wimbledon
2016: Djokovic Australian Open
2017: Nadal, Roland Garros
2018: Federer, Australian Open
2019: Djokovic, Australian Open
2020: Nadal, Roland Garros
2021: Djokovic, Wimbledon. Just edges out Medvedev.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

why unquestionably?
Pete beat Agassi at Miami 94 and Agassi beat Pete at Miami 95.
Also Sampras has 3 titles at Miami, not 2.

there's a difference b/w facing Sampras on medium-fast to faster court to facing him on a slower court or specifically USO to AO here. You get more breathing room in the latter though obviously its still tough.

Non-peak (at least physically) Sampras beats non-peak Agassi in confident 3 despite dropping the first set from IIRC a double break up due to his physical ailment, but won the next two sets in a fairly one-sided fashion. Even if you say the last two sets were peak, that still works strongly in his favour since he won them dominantly. The following year, peak Agassi barely edges non-peak Sampras in deciding TB on Agassi's favourite court. Yeah, it's obvious who the better peak player is. We're discussing career best forms not long prime comparison/H2H.

yeah, Andriy Medvedev was too good in windy conditions. remember he beat prime Kuerten in straight sets in QF in windy conditions. He was really good in the 1st 2 sets and Agassi was struggling vs him+the conditions. Agassi had also beaten defending champion Moya.

Kuerten was known for being inconsistent even in his best runs, almost to Russell in 2001. Just the fact of beating Kuerten says little without a level analysis. Trying justify getting stomped always reeks of excuse making. Anyway Agassi is better than Sampras at RG but Pete would have a chance in his top form over the longer run, 8-2 or 7-3 looks fair.

clear threat of losing.

So dropping sets doesn't really matter now as long as you don't come close to losing, I'll hold you to this in future discussions.

 

[abmk]

Non-peak (at least physically) Sampras beats non-peak Agassi in confident 3 despite dropping the first set from IIRC a double break up due to his physical ailment, but won the next two sets in a fairly one-sided fashion. Even if you say the last two sets were peak, that still works strongly in his favour since he won them dominantly. The following year, peak Agassi barely edges non-peak Sampras in deciding TB on Agassi's favourite court. Yeah, it's obvious who the better peak player is. We're discussing career best forms not long prime comparison/H2H.

94 Miami was just couple of months into comeback after surgery for Agassi.. So you can say non-peak. Granted guy had come through a draw of good players

what makes Miami 95 Sampras non-peak? guy had beaten Agassi in straights in IW final just couple of weeks before.
the one bad stretch in the 2nd set of the final? that can happen at your peak too. (you don't have to call that stretch peak obviously)

Kuerten was known for being inconsistent even in his best runs, almost to Russell in 2001. Just the fact of beating Kuerten says little without a level analysis. Trying justify getting stomped always reeks of excuse making. Anyway Agassi is better than Sampras at RG but Pete would have a chance in his top form over the longer run, 8-2 or 7-3 looks fair.

I already told you Andriy was pretty good in windy conditions. Kuerten not so much. Hence Andriy playing well was able to beat prime Kuerten in straight sets. This was already QF, not 4R like the Rusell match
Re: RG 99 final, I'm just stating what happened.

So dropping sets doesn't really matter now as long as you don't come close to losing, I'll hold you to this in future discussions.

that's not what I said at all. The Rochus match is what brings down Safin AO 05 run below Djoko's AO 11 run.
Just that it doesn't bring it down significantly below it.
so don't misinterpret what I'm saying.

 

[RS]

How close is RG 05 Nadal to Wim 05 Fed?

 

[RS]

2012 is 2nd.
Pick one of 2007/08/11 after that.

Edit: 2005 had potential for being the best in the 1st half. went down in the 2nd half.

2001 or 2006?

 

[zuluzazu]

2003: Federer, Wimbledon
2004: Federer, Wimbledon
2005: This is tough...
2006: Nadal, Roland Garros
2007: Federer, Australian Open
2008: Nadal, Roland Garros
2009: Nadal, Australian Open
2010: Nadal, US Open
2011: Djokovic, Australian Open
2012: Djokovic, Australian Open
2013: Nadal, Roland Garros
2014: This one is also pretty up in the air...
2015: Djokovic, Wimbledon
2016: Djokovic Australian Open
2017: Nadal, Roland Garros
2018: Federer, Australian Open
2019: Djokovic, Australian Open
2020: Nadal, Roland Garros
2021: Djokovic, Wimbledon. Just edges out Medvedev.

LOL this is considered one of the worst AO winning campaigns for Federer. No way was this better than Novak at Wimby or Nadal at RG

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

94 Miami was just couple of months into comeback after surgery for Agassi.. So you can say non-peak. Granted guy had come through a draw of good players

Neither was peak obviously. So Sampras winning is a valid point.

what makes Miami 95 Sampras non-peak? guy had beaten Agassi in straights in IW final just couple of weeks before.
the one bad stretch in the 2nd set of the final? that can happen at your peak too. (you don't have to call that stretch peak obviously)

What makes 1995 Sampras non-peak? Funny question. What makes him peak? That he was able to find peak form in the IW final against a rival in generally superior form at the time only speaks in his favour.
Sampras isn't losing a double break set to anyone off clay in actual peak form, don't even start.

I already told you Andriy was pretty good in windy conditions. Kuerten not so much. Hence Andriy playing well was able to beat prime Kuerten in straight sets. This was already QF, not 4R like the Rusell match
Re: RG 99 final, I'm just stating what happened.

Sounds like you're trying to excuse Agassi's getting beat down for two sets. No matter if your opponent plays well, that's a failure. I don't remember you excusing Djokovic's performance in the USO '12 final because of the wind (giving him the hypothetical non-windy title doesn't count because it's obvious).

that's not what I said at all. The Rochus match is what brings down Safin AO 05 run below Djoko's AO 11 run.
Just that it doesn't bring it down significantly below it.
so don't misinterpret what I'm saying.

Depends on what you think "close" means. With the Rochus match and the first set of the final weighing Safin's run down, it doesn't look that close. A half-notch let's say, maybe 3/4. Close is what the semifinal was with Djokovic managing just 1.03 DR against declined Federer, lolol.

 

[abmk]

Neither was peak obviously. So Sampras winning is a valid point.

yeah, I don't disagree.
Sampras got one over Agassi in 94
Agassi got one over Sampras in 95. See below.

I think its close enough b/w them at prime/peak form at Miami.

What makes 1995 Sampras non-peak? Funny question. What makes him peak? That he was able to find peak form in the IW final against a rival in generally superior form at the time only speaks in his favour.
Sampras isn't losing a double break set to anyone off clay in actual peak form, don't even start.

95 was a peak year for Sampras.

of course that stretch was bad from Sampras. But he played well in the sets 1 and 3. So if Sampras had lost set2 by one break or if Agassi had not played that well in 2nd set to win that strech so well, Sampras would have become peak?

Sounds like you're trying to excuse Agassi's getting beat down for two sets. No matter if your opponent plays well, that's a failure. I don't remember you excusing Djokovic's performance in the USO '12 final because of the wind (giving him the hypothetical non-windy title doesn't count because it's obvious).

no, Agassi does deserve to have some points cut for it. But that doesn't mean ruling that out RG from prime/peak performance given Andriy was excellent in the windy conditions.

Depends on what you think "close" means. With the Rochus match and the first set of the final weighing Safin's run down, it doesn't look that close. A half-notch let's say, maybe 3/4. Close is what the semifinal was with Djokovic managing just 1.03 DR against declined Federer, lolol.

Like I said less weightage on the Rochus match compared to last 3 rounds.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I think its close enough b/w them at prime/peak form at Miami.

Which means PETE wins since his mental strength is far superior

95 was a peak year for Sampras.

@metsman look at that lol
prime =! peak

of course that stretch was bad from Sampras. But he played well in the sets 1 and 3. So if Sampras had lost set2 by one break or if Agassi had not played that well in 2nd set to win that strech so well, Sampras would have become peak?

Well that didn't happen. Sampras would've needed to play better to limit Agassi to one break in the second set and a better Sampras could/would have won then. If you want to get into specifics, Agassi faced triple BP at 2-2 2nd set then won 19 points in a row including a double love break. A humongous peak stretch but that effectively proves Sampras not being peak as well. If anything, he was the worse player in the first set too after a good start getting an early break, but was clutch to save a bunch of BPs to deny a break back. If that's peak you have an unduly low opinion of Pete's peak in general.

no, Agassi does deserve to have some points cut for it. But that doesn't mean ruling that out from prime/peak performance given Andriy was excellent in the windy conditions.

How much is your level worth when you get stomped by an opponent in certain conditions and need them to change / the opponent to get worse for you to win? Not much at all.

Like I said less weightage on the Rochus match.

That's still something when there's nothing objective to weigh Djokovic down. (Saying Safin played better in their respective semis is possible but unprovable, somewhat different conditions & game types here. Would've been a very interesting match but we have what we have.)

 

[abmk]

Which means PETE wins since his mental strength is far superior

Sampras is significantly better overall considering career.
he's better peak to peak mentally, but not far superior.
gets lesser on conditions that don't suit him the best.
mental strength doesn't exist in a vacuum.

@metsman look at that lol
prime =! peak

only 94, 97 could be said to be clearly superior to 95. 93 is debatable. You want only 3 peak years for Sampras?
Keep in mind, he was a point away from going slamless in 96, won Wimbledon and only 3 measly titles in 98, skipped 2 slams in 99 and got bundled out early at a 3rd.

Well that didn't happen. Sampras would've needed to play better to limit Agassi to one break in the second set and a better Sampras could/would have won then. If you want to get into specifics, Agassi faced triple BP at 2-2 2nd set then won 19 points in a row including a double love break. A humongous peak stretch but that effectively proves Sampras not being peak as well. If anything, he was the worse player in the first set too after a good start getting an early break, but was clutch to save a bunch of BPs to deny a break back. If that's peak you have an unduly low opinion of Pete's peak in general.

Sampras could have won if he had limited it to 1 break, but not necessarily would have.
that 1st set from Sampras is fairly typical of him at his peak, not so atypical. You won't find lot of matches from Sampras where he concentrated point to point.

How much is your level worth when you get stomped by an opponent in certain conditions and need them to change / the opponent to get worse for you to win? Not much at all.

nah, this is just over-expectation from you.

That's still something when there's nothing objective to weigh Djokovic down. (Saying Safin played better in their respective semis is possible but unprovable, somewhat different conditions & game types here. Would've been a very interesting match but we have what we have.)

Not sure there's a point in continuing on this track. I already said Rochus match brought this run from Safin down compared to Djoko's AO 11 run.

 

[metsman]

Agassi was in clearly better form than Sampras in either 95/00 encounter yet needed a netcord return in crunch time to edge Pete, meh. Reverse the form advantage and I reckon the matches are less close in Sampras's favour than they were in Agassi's favour as they happened. All this 'comfort' dissipates when PETE is involved. We've seen that in Mugiami, Agassi leads 6 titles to 2 but no question whose peak is higher and it's not Andre. (Darkly hilarious how much more you're willing to grant Federer than anyone else, reasonably unbiased truth-seeking dude.)

Yeah I'd forgotten about Agassi's 1988 RG, his first top season would actually be his best form there I suppose (can't say much of 1999 due to being stomped for the first two sets by Medvedev, try that against Wilander and you lose in four sets max), pushed Wilander well for four sets before petering out but Sampras would still have more trouble if it reached the fifth set and most likely loses in four anyway, so yes.

@metsman what are you doing standing by while PETE is being slandered so help me restore some justice in these godforsaken lands.





Losing the first set + three tiebreaks means no threat, interesting. Rochus was up 4-1 in the third set according to a match report. Safin was always the better player but made a show of wasting opportunities, 1/18 on BPs lal. Good thing he broke exactly when needed most.

AO is a neutral surface so no one is clearly out in front of the pack out of Fed, Safin, Sampras, Agassi, Djokovic, even Nadal, however I think I would slightly take 94 AO Pete over 95 Agassi.

94 AO-Wimby was clearly the best Sampras ever played in my eyes but it's understandable if someone doesn't want to limit his peak to 6 months either, semantics in any case. Of course when someone has 3-4 consecutive clear peak runs and yet people are jostling to make the lower ones peak there's clearly something disingenuous.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

AO is a neutral surface so no one is clearly out in front of the pack out of Fed, Safin, Sampras, Agassi, Djokovic, even Nadal, however I think I would slightly take 94 AO Pete over 95 Agassi.

94 AO-Wimby was clearly the best Sampras ever played in my eyes but it's understandable if someone doesn't want to limit his peak to 6 months either, semantics in any case. Of course when someone has 3-4 consecutive clear peak runs and yet people are jostling to make the lower ones peak there's clearly something disingenuous.

What's Nadal doing in this list? @abmk look at this lol
Where's the whole 'best Nadal was overall worse than 4th/5th best Federer and only won thanks to Fed choking' narrative when it is needed most?

 

[zuluzazu]

What's Nadal doing in this list? @abmk look at this lol
Where's the whole 'best Nadal was overall worse than 4th/5th best Federer and only won thanks to Fed choking' narrative when it is needed most?

Lol Fed fans nowadays sound just like those former pro player fans who think they know everything and that their player has the highest peak. This is a hilarious narrative.

 

[abmk]

What's Nadal doing in this list? @abmk look at this lol
Where's the whole 'best Nadal was overall worse than 4th/5th best Federer and only won thanks to Fed choking' narrative when it is needed most?

Yeah, I wouldn't agree with Nadal on that list. I'd put the other 4 above Sampras as well, but not by much.
I don't think AO 09 Nadal was worse than 09 AO Fed overall. Fed lost in the final because he was a little worse in the end overall. thanks to the serving. I'd put the mental factor next. Anyways fed also had that 4R match vs birdman where he was down 2 sets to love.
in shorter stretches, you could say fed peaked higher than nadal in AO 09. but you gotta sustain that.
That's why I put Sampras behind the other 4 as well at AO.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

only 94, 97 could be said to be clearly superior to 95. 93 is debatable. You want only 3 peak years for Sampras?
Keep in mind, he was a point away from going slamless in 96, won Wimbledon and only 3 measly titles in 98, skipped 2 slams in 99 and got bundled out early at a 3rd.

We're talking in terms of playing a career best match. Sampras never peaked throughout a whole season from start to finish, so in that sense he doesn't have a peak year, but he has prime years filled with peak stretches. In 1995 he had the consistent prime level to get deep and managed to peak in some big finals, no consistent peak stretch really.

Sampras could have won if he had limited it to 1 break, but not necessarily would have.
that 1st set from Sampras is fairly typical of him at his peak, not so atypical. You won't find lot of matches from Sampras where he concentrated point to point.

We're talking in the context of a career best match. Sampras wasn't peak given that he was outplayed for significant stretches, and it went to a final tiebreak, so that says enough if we see Agassi as peak. You can say that Agassi wasn't peak either, but then when was he? It'd be either 1996 (the best player he faced was Boetsch, excluding Ivanisevic who retired three games into the final - how convenient) or one of the 01-03 showings (having Agassi peak in his 30s doesn't seem right, if he can why not [insert any player] then?)

nah, this is just over-expectation from you.

You saying so sure makes it true.

Not sure there's a point in continuing on this track. I already said Rochus match brought this run from Safin down compared to Djoko's AO 11 run.

There isn't, point is it's not that close but depends on how close you take "close" to mean.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Lol Fed fans nowadays sound just like those former pro player fans who think they know everything and that their player has the highest peak. This is a hilarious narrative.

They do, and will find ways to not acknowledge that. Deplorably sad more than anything. The one important thingy you didn't mention is that plenty of Djokodal fans feel much the same way, even if their expression is somewhat different. Tons of people are damn sure their eyedoll is da best and will staunchly reject anything to the contrary. I don't really care anymore, you cannot get forum dwellers to treasure intellectual honesty, period. What I care about is seeing the best tennis - the better, the better (tautology duh) - and it's not happening and I don't care what people say, I can tell a good mixture of quality and entertainment and we're not getting that for the most part, so much so.

 

[abmk]

We're talking in terms of playing a career best match. Sampras never peaked throughout a whole season from start to finish, so in that sense he doesn't have a peak year, but he has prime years filled with peak stretches. In 1995 he had the consistent prime level to get deep and managed to peak in some big finals, no consistent peak stretch really.

We're talking in the context of a career best match. Sampras wasn't peak given that he was outplayed for significant stretches, and it went to a final tiebreak, so that says enough if we see Agassi as peak. You can say that Agassi wasn't peak either, but then when was he? It'd be either 1996 (the best player he faced was Boetsch, excluding Ivanisevic who retired three games into the final - how convenient) or one of the 01-03 showings (having Agassi peak in his 30s doesn't seem right, if he can why not [insert any player] then?)

We're working with what we've got right here. The 2 Miami finals. Both Sampras, Agassi have played better matches individually at Miami.
Getting outplayed in a set after being a break up, but managing to hold onto break adv vs an excellent returner to win it 6-3 is still good enough.
Oh and you missed Agassi winning Miami in 1990.

Also Sampras lost set 6-2 to Korda in 93 Miami semi.

You saying so sure makes it true.

I stand by it. Disagree if you want.

 

[ibbi]

LOL this is considered one of the worst AO winning campaigns for Federer. No way was this better than Novak at Wimby or Nadal at RG

Nadal was rubbish that Roland Garros. It's amazing to me people harp on Federer for that Aussie Open run, and forget/forgive how (comparatively) awful Rafa was.

Both their Aussie Open and Roland Garros runs were pale imitations of the ones they had the previous year, but aside from the joke of a semi-final, Federer had a bunch of wins over a bunch of guys who all made it to their matches with him very convincingly.

You could say the same about Rafa, but to me the last three rounds all stick out as being particularly unconvincing. Diego was whooping his butt till the delay, Del Potro was out on his feet, and when his hand started cramping at the end of the final I almost died. Never forget Ken Rosewall's words.

I did initally go with Novak at Wimbledon for 2018, but I give Federer the edge for the much better first week, and the comparatively lesser joke of a final. Cilic was really good that tournament, say what you like about him otherwise.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Addendum: you can ask when Sampras peaked in Miami too then, as far as finals the answer probably is the last two sets of 93/94 finals lol, so in a sense, Pete was peak in 1994 when he wasn't overcome by sickness. So, then, hypothetical non-sick peak PETE straight-sets non-peak Agassi (and actual Pete dominated him in he last two sets anyway) in 1994, but actual peak healthy Agassi had to go to a deciding TB with non-peak PETE in 1995. Now that's an obvious conclusion and if you keep pushing a narrative to circumvent this, gotta ask yourself what's up with your judgment and general concept of tennis and how it works.

 

[abmk]

Addendum: you can ask when Sampras peaked in Miami too then, as far as finals the answer probably is the last two sets of 93/94 finals lol, so in a sense, Pete was peak in 1994 when he wasn't overcome by sickness. So, then, hypothetical non-sick peak PETE straight-sets non-peak Agassi (and actual Pete dominated him in he last two sets anyway) in 1994, but actual peak healthy Agassi had to go to a deciding TB with non-peak PETE in 1995. Now that's an obvious conclusion and if you keep pushing a narrative to circumvent this, gotta ask yourself what's up with your judgment and general concept of tennis and how it works.

Pete in set1 and 3 of Miami 95 final closer to best level than Agassi in sets 2 and 3 of Miami 94 final.
So no.

 

[zuluzazu]

Nadal was rubbish that Roland Garros. It's amazing to me people harp on Federer for that Aussie Open run, and forget/forgive how (comparatively) awful Rafa was.

Both their Aussie Open and Roland Garros runs were pale imitations of the ones they had the previous year, but aside from the joke of a semi-final, Federer had a bunch of wins over a bunch of guys who all made it to their matches with him very convincingly.

You could say the same about Rafa, but to me the last three rounds all stick out as being particularly unconvincing. Diego was whooping his butt till the delay, Del Potro was out on his feet, and when his hand started cramping at the end of the final I almost died. Never forget Ken Rosewall's words.

I did initally go with Novak at Wimbledon for 2018, but I give Federer the edge for the much better first week, and the comparatively lesser joke of a final. Cilic was really good that tournament, say what you like about him otherwise.

But Fed did not have any match anywhere near the quality of the Wimby 2018 SF. That was maybe the best match in Wimbledon since 2009 F

 

[ibbi]

But Fed did not have any match anywhere near the quality of the Wimby 2018 SF. That was maybe the best match in Wimbledon since 2009 F

Well, no, but nobody anywhere the whole decade had a match that good. I'm not going to give the whole tournament the rub because of one match (Nishikori and Edmund ones also pretty impressive).

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Oh and you missed Agassi winning Miami in 1990.

I didn't, but he got bagelled there. Yes, third set in a BO5 format after going two sets up, but still, can't see 1995 Agassi letting a set go like that. Plus he lost the first set in three consecutive matches pre-final, so it's not like he'd been ripping everyone before.

I stand by it. Disagree if you want.

Of course. I don't expect you to change your mind at all unless you feel like it.

Pete in set1 and 3 of Miami 95 final closer to best level than Agassi in sets 2 and 3 of Miami 94 final.
So no.

But of course the scorelines were different. I found Sampras impressive. Haven't rewatched those matches in a long time though. I always default to Sampras in peak comparisons with any contemporaries since his top game is intrinsically higher with that crazy serve+FH potency supported by variety and athleticism and clutchness, unless the conditions are strongly against his favour, which basically means clay. Cross-era comparisons are different since conditions/equipment difference muddle them.

 

[RS]

What's Nadal doing in this list? @abmk look at this lol
Where's the whole 'best Nadal was overall worse than 4th/5th best Federer and only won thanks to Fed choking' narrative when it is needed most?

Are you sure AO 09 is not the 6th best Fed at AO and Fed didn’t have back problems?

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Are you sure AO 09 is not the 6th best Fed at AO and Fed didn’t have back problems?

Are you?

 

[RS]

Are you?

Who knows this days? If a injury effected Fed was better or equal to Nadal off the ground for 4.2 out of 5 sets what does it tell us?

 

[abmk]

I didn't, but he got bagelled there. Yes, third set in a BO5 format after going two sets up, but still, can't see 1995 Agassi letting a set go like that. Plus he lost the first set in three consecutive matches pre-final, so it's not like he'd been ripping everyone before.

6-1 and 6-2 sets though.

But of course the scorelines were different. I found Sampras impressive. Haven't rewatched those matches in a long time though. I always default to Sampras in peak comparisons with any contemporaries since his top game is intrinsically higher with that crazy serve+FH potency supported by variety and athleticism and clutchness, unless the conditions are strongly against his favour, which basically means clay. Cross-era comparisons are different since conditions/equipment difference muddle them.

My point is Sampras was closer to his best in Miami 95 final than Agassi in Miami 94 final.
So you can't club Miami 95 non-peak Sampras (as per you) and Miami 94 non-peak Agassi as similar
Miami is close enough b/w Sampras and Agassi at peak/prime. So I don't particularly have a strong opinion there.

The difference b/w Sampras on slower HC and other non-clay conditions is sustainability across a longer match.

But Sampras was a little less comfortable at AO in general as he himself admitted. Hence I give the edge to Agassi.

 

[abmk]

Are you sure AO 09 is not the 6th best Fed at AO and Fed didn’t have back problems?

Are you?

AO 09 should be 5th/6th best Fed at AO.
2010 AO fed served well in final and similar off ground compared to 2009 AO final fed
better in davy QF in AO 2010 than 4R vs birdman in AO 09
2 masterclasses each in AO 09 QF/SF and AO 10 4R/SF
of course he had some trouble vs Andreev in 1R in 2010, but no similar opponent in 1st 3 rounds in AO 09, so ....

 

[RS]

So no mono AO 08 may be said better as well so in reality that would push it down to 6th/7th.