Comparing Federer and Sampras

[McEnroeisanartist]

Sampras never had a season where he had a winning % above 88%. Federer has had four seasons with a winning % above 88%.

Perhaps, most amazingly, despite a horrible year (by his lofty standards), if Federer wins tomorrow, his winning percentage in 2011 will be higher than 4 of the 6 years that Sampras was ranked number one!

Sampras and Federer have both been finished the year ranked in the top 3 for 9 consecutive years. Sampras finished year end #1 6 times, Federer finished year end #1 5 times. Sampras finished in the top 2 6 times, Federer finished in the top 2 8 times. In the 9 years, Sampras had three seasons with a winning % above 84% and three season with a winning percentage below 80%. In the 9 years, Federer had 6 seasons (if he wins tomorrow) with a winning % above 84% and didn't have a season with a winning percentage below 80%. In the 9 years, Sampras averaged 62 wins per season and averaged 14 losses per season. In the 9 years, Federer averaged 72 wins per season and averaged 10 losses per season.

 

[The Baseline]

Federer has hit never before seen angles. Angles that nobody will ever be able to hit. Thats why Federer> Sampras

 

[dudeski]

Sampras was number 1 often with fewer points than Nadal had when he was #2 during Fed #1 reign. Basically Sampras was #1 in a weak area. Especially 1997 and 1998.

 

[Winner_DownTheLine]

Sampras got me into watching tennis, Federer got me into playing tennis. Love both their games, Fed is a more all round player than Pete which is apparent from the results.

 

[TennisLovaLova]

both very good tennis players with honorable records at GS
federer is more an all around player than sampras was though

 

[rossi46]

Sampras was mentally tougher, wasn't owned by his main rival, played in a stronger era and the surfaces were true.

 

[tennis_pro]

Sampras was mentally tougher, wasn't owned by his main rival, played in a stronger era and the surfaces were true.

Sampras didn't face a 5-year younger lefty rival only on clay with a massive topspin that would break Sampras' backhand twice as much as Federer's. Instead he played an older one, mostly on hard courts and playing style that match-uped well against Sampras.

Sampras played in an era where clay courters like Muster Moya or Kuerten who were (almost) non-existant on other surfaces could take away the no 1 spot from him. The same Sampras who lost the no 1 spot to Rios who reached no more than 1 GS semi-final in his career.

 

[TennisLovaLova]

I would also like to add that sampras had a charisma/communication issue

 

[helloworld]

I'm not saying Federer or Sampras is better. I believe that both players are equally great. Both have accomplished tremendously. Sampras has some superior records to Federer(No.1 for 6 years, most weeks at No.1, 7 Wimbledon, etc), while Federer has some superior records to Sampras as well. So there's really no point to compare or bash either player. They're both great. End of story.

 

[Russeljones]

It's all about clay. Federer is much better player on clay, however, despite what the records say, Sampras was probably the best hc player I have ever seen (and I am a Federer fan).

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

Why are we even comparing Sampras with Federer? For the best comparison from the 90s it should be Agassi, no?

 

[fed_rulz]

I'm not saying Federer or Sampras is better. I believe that both players are equally great. Both have accomplished tremendously. Sampras has some superior records to Federer(No.1 for 6 years, most weeks at No.1, 7 Wimbledon, etc), while Federer has some superior records to Sampras as well. So there's really no point to compare or bash either player. They're both great. End of story.

No they're not. it's a digrace, a outrage, an scandal to even claim that Sampras is on level-footing with Federer on the greatness scale. Federer surpassed pete quite a while ago.

 

[TMF]

No they're not. it's a digrace, a outrage, an scandal to even claim that Sampras is on level-footing with Federer on the greatness scale. Federer surpassed pete quite a while ago.

Federer surpassed Sampras even more after nearly 3 years.


17 slams > 14
6 WTF > 5 WTF
302 weeks at #1 > 285
22 Master Shields > 11
80 single titles > 64

 

[Russeljones]

Federer surpassed Sampras even more after nearly 3 years.


17 slams > 14
6 WTF > 5 WTF
302 weeks at #1 > 285
22 Master Shields > 11
80 single titles > 64

We attribute a lot more weight to those tournaments now than they held during Pete's time. The consecutive YE#1's are a more impressive achievement than Federer's total weeks, in my opinion.

 

[TMF]

We attribute a lot more weight to those tournaments now than they held during Pete's time. The consecutive YE#1's are a more impressive achievement than Federer's total weeks, in my opinion.

I disagree, because part of Federer 302 weeks at #1 includes 237 consecutive weeks.

YE #1 say you're #1 in December, but doesn't say how much time you spent at #1 during the calendar year. One can stay #1 for 5 weeks but can end the year #1, but another player can stay 45 weeks and doesn't end the year #1. I think weeks at #1 actually measure exactly how long a player is the best player.

 

[helloworld]

Federer surpassed Sampras even more after nearly 3 years.


17 slams > 14
6 WTF > 5 WTF
302 weeks at #1 > 285
22 Master Shields > 11
80 single titles > 64

Ridiculous Fa-rds at it again. Resurrecting ancient threads and try to bash Sampras is not going to make your man become GOAT or beat Nadal these days. If Master 1000 really matters to you, then you must accept that Nadal is the GOAT. :shock:

 

[henryshli]

Sampras was number 1 often with fewer points than Nadal had when he was #2 during Fed #1 reign. Basically Sampras was #1 in a weak area. Especially 1997 and 1998.

This is meaningless unless you adjust for the change in the scoring system which I don't think you have

 

[TMF]

Ridiculous Fa-rds at it again. Resurrecting ancient threads and try to bash Sampras is not going to make your man become GOAT or beat Nadal these days. If Master 1000 really matters to you, then you must accept that Nadal is the GOAT. :shock:

The thread is only less than 3 years.

Comparing individual player's achievements/stats doesn't equate to bashing.

Master Series isn't the biggest events but it still part of tennis achievement.

 

[dominikk1985]

The thread is only less than 3 years.

Comparing individual player's achievements/stats doesn't equate to bashing.

Master Series isn't the biggest events but it still part of tennis achievement.

weren't there less masters in sampras time?

 

[rossi46]

Peak Federer dominated the great Andy Roddick and master head cases such as Gonzalez, Nalbandian & Blake. Even at his peak he really struggled against a younger and much more inexperienced supposed "rival" in Nadal. Sampras never lost a final at Wimbledon and he had much tougher competition on real grass against real grass court players.

 

[TMF]

This is meaningless unless you adjust for the change in the scoring system which I don't think you have

I think Nadal who ended 2005 at #2 was better than Sampras who ended 1998 at #1.

Sampras YE #1
1998: 61-17(78.2%); 1 slam, 1 slam final, 4 titles

Nadal YE #2
2005: 79-10(88.8%); 1 slam, 1 slam final, 11 titles(including 4 Master Shields)

 

[helloworld]

I think Nadal who ended 2005 at #2 was better than Sampras who ended 1998 at #1.

Sampras YE #1
1998: 61-17(78.2%); 1 slam, 1 slam final, 4 titles

Nadal YE #2
2005: 79-10(88.8%); 1 slam, 1 slam final, 11 titles(including 4 Master Shields)

When will you learn that you cannot compare across era? Sampras and Nadal played in a vastly different conditions and competitions. I'm not going to say who plays in a weaker or stronger era(although many will say 2004-2007 was the weakest era in men's tennis history), but the point is they are great in their own era. So Fa-rds, you should focus on comparing Fed to Nadal, not Sampras.

 

[henryshli]

I think Nadal who ended 2005 at #2 was better than Sampras who ended 1998 at #1.

Sampras YE #1
1998: 61-17(78.2%); 1 slam, 1 slam final, 4 titles

Nadal YE #2
2005: 79-10(88.8%); 1 slam, 1 slam final, 11 titles(including 4 Master Shields)

Winning percentage don't mean much depends on the quality of the tournaments played. Don't really remember Nadal in 2005 probably one of those years where he played lots of tiny clay tournaments.

 

[Mayonnaise]

When will you learn that you cannot compare across era? Sampras and Nadal played in a vastly different conditions and competitions. I'm not going to say who plays in a weaker or stronger era(although many will say 2004-2007 was the weakest era in men's tennis history), but the point is they are great in their own era. So Fa-rds, you should focus on comparing Fed to Nadal, not Sampras.

17 > 14
6 > 5
22 > 11
80 > 64
302 > 286
1 - 0

:lol:

 

[Feather]

I disagree, because part of Federer 302 weeks at #1 includes 237 consecutive weeks.

YE #1 say you're #1 in December, but doesn't say how much time you spent at #1 during the calendar year. One can stay #1 for 5 weeks but can end the year #1, but another player can stay 45 weeks and doesn't end the year #1. I think weeks at #1 actually measure exactly how long a player is the best player.

Pete Sampras has six continuous YE #1, just in case you forget. It's an amazing metric and in it that Pete just owns Roger.

There is absolutely no need to resurrect this thread at this point. You are highly insecure

 

[Mayonnaise]

Pete Sampras has six continuous YE #1, just in case you forget. It's an amazing metric and in it that Pete just owns Roger.

There is absolutely no need to resurrect this thread at this point. You are highly insecure

I honestly don't think Sampras has much left for Federer fans to be insecure about, at this point :lol:

 

[Feather]

I honestly don't think Sampras has much left for Federer fans to be insecure about, at this point :lol:

I was talking to one particular poster. I don't think there is any need to resurrect this thread. He did that as if to prove something and for me that appeared like insecure and desparate. No intention to argue further about this

 

[objectivity]

17 > 14
6 > 5
22 > 11
80 > 64
302 > 286
1 - 0

:lol:

agree with all those stats above.

BUT...

Brigitte >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mirka. agree?

 

[BeGreat]

Federer has hit never before seen angles. Angles that nobody will ever be able to hit. Thats why Federer> Sampras

indeed.
no one will be able to those angles ever again. ever. it's official. no point in trying.

 

[sportsfan1]

I would also like to add that sampras had a charisma/communication issue

Very true. For all the talent he possessed with the game, nature seems to have compensated with a lack of charisma and communication skills.

 

[Agassifan]

The consecutive YE#1's are a more impressive achievement than Federer's total weeks, in my opinion.

Yeah, Pete beats Fed in one statistical category only. What about everything else?

 

[TMF]

Yeah, Pete beats Fed in one statistical category only. What about everything else?

Yes, Sampras has one more YE #1 than Federer.

However not all YE #1 are equally impressive when you review their yearly accomplishment and level of dominance.

Sampras 6 YE #1:
1993: 85-16(84%); 2 slams, 2 slam finals, 8 titles
1994: 77-12(86%); 2 slams, 2 slam finals, YEC, 10 titles
1995: 72-16(82%); 2 slams, 3 slam finals, 5 titles
1996: 65-11(85%); 1 slam, 1 slam final, YEC, 8 titles
1997: 55-12(82%); 2 slams, 2 slam finals, YEC, 8 titles
1998: 61-17(78%); 1 slam, 1 slam final, 4 titles


Federer 5 YE #1:
2004: 74-6(93%); 3 slams, 3 slam finals, YEC, 11 titles
2005: 81-4(95%), 2 slams, 2 slam finals, 11 titles
2006: 92-5(95%), 3 slams, 4 slam finals, YEC, 12 titles
2007: 68-9(88%), 3 slams, 4 slam finals, YEC, 8 titles
2009: 61-12(84%), 2 slams, 4 slam finals, 4 titls

Total:
Sampras: 82.8%(ave), 10 slams, 11 slam finals, 3 YEC, 43 titles
Federer: 91%(ave), 13 slams, 17 slam finals, 3 YEC, 46 titles

Not all Year End #1 are equally impressive

 

[West Coast Ace]

Very true. For all the talent he possessed with the game, nature seems to have compensated with a lack of charisma and communication skills.

Depends what your baseline is. Compared to a piece of plywood, Pete is Mr. Personality.

Like Fed is known to say "it's nice to be important but it's important to be nice." Sampras never cared about growing the game, meeting with fans. Sampras never fought for more money for lower ranked players at the majors.

 

[FD3S]

Depends what your baseline is. Compared to a piece of plywood, Pete is Mr. Personality.

Like Fed is known to say "it's nice to be important but it's important to be nice." Sampras never cared about growing the game, meeting with fans. Sampras never fought for more money for lower ranked players at the majors.

Very true. Pete seemed like a guy - and I don't mean this as a knock - who was very much in tune with the game itself, but who also seemed like a guy that couldn't have cared less about anything related to tennis that wasn't actually playing tennis. It worked for him, though.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Was watching some Sampras and Federer HL vids earlier. It felt like I was watching different versions of the same player rather often.

 

[West Coast Ace]

Very true. Pete seemed like a guy - and I don't mean this as a knock - who was very much in tune with the game itself, but who also seemed like a guy that couldn't have cared less about anything related to tennis that wasn't actually playing tennis. It worked for him, though.

Yeah. Single mindedness isn't a crime. Never heard he was nasty to anyone; but wasn't nice either. Just played; did the minimum press required; back to the hotel. Toward the end of his career his team spouted off that he should be thought of like Jordan and Gretzky - but they were ambassadors for their sports and he wasn't.

 

[TMF]

Winning percentage don't mean much depends on the quality of the tournaments played. Don't really remember Nadal in 2005 probably one of those years where he played lots of tiny clay tournaments.

Sampras also played multiple small tourneys with only 32-man draw. Nadal overall played more tournaments and had better winning percentage rewards him with more single titles. So winning % does reflect your yearly accomplishment.


Back to main premise: If we convert all of Nadal(2005) atp points to the old system and compare to Sampras(1998), I'm sure Nadal has a more points than Pete. And we all know why Nadal had to settle for the year end #2 in 2005.

 

[rodrigo_palacio88]

Sampras was mentally tougher, wasn't owned by his main rival, played in a stronger era and the surfaces were true.

that is not true , sampras never faced a rival like nadal , nadal is goat material and the absolut clay goat.

agassi is not even close to nadal like main rival , even djoko is very very close to agassi.

agassi was 2 years out of tennis , and was a headcase in many years during the 90s , was a guy who was forced to play tennis for his father and confessed lost matches on purpose for not play with x player!!!! CAN YOU IMAGINE NADAL OR DJOKOVIC DOING THAT????

 

[TMF]

Most match wins at the 4 grand slam events.

Australian Open
Federer - 73
Sampras - 45

Roland Garros
Federer - 58
Sampras - 24

Wimbledon
Federer - 73
Sampras - 63

US Open
Federer - 67
Sampras - 71

Only the US Open is where Sampras has more match wins than Federer. However, if Federer pass the 4th round at the US Open this year, he will have more wins than Sampras.

 

[The Green Mile]

Sampras with 24 wins at RG is more than I expected really. I was thinking around 16/17..... well done, I guess.

 

[Russeljones]

Was watching some Sampras and Federer HL vids earlier. It felt like I was watching different versions of the same player rather often.

Hmm. That match is always bittersweet for me to watch. I think there are still facets of Sampras's game that I prefer. I may be too critical of Roger, but it seems like he made a lot of compromises post-2009. I am afraid Dimitrov is doing this now too.

 

[TMF]

Federer has a chance later this year to surpass Sampras for most aces in his career.

Career Aces:
1. Goran Ivanisevic 10183
2. Andy Roddick 9074
3. Pete Sampras 8858
4. Roger Federer 8723

 

[jg153040]

Federer has a chance later this year to surpass Sampras for most aces in his career.

Career Aces:
1. Goran Ivanisevic 10183
2. Andy Roddick 9074
3. Pete Sampras 8858
4. Roger Federer 8723

Didn't Federer surpass Borg for winning more matches at RG?
Which is pretty incredible actually.

 

[TMF]

Didn't Federer surpass Borg for winning more matches at RG?
Which is pretty incredible actually.

Yes, he's only 2nd behind Nadal.

Most match wins at RG:
1. 59
2. 58
3. 56
4. 53
5. 51
6. 49

 

[helloworld]

Federer has a chance later this year to surpass Sampras for most aces in his career.

Career Aces:
1. Goran Ivanisevic 10183
2. Andy Roddick 9074
3. Pete Sampras 8858
4. Roger Federer 8723

You're seriously going to compare Federer's serve to Sampras now? :shock:

 

[jg153040]

You're seriously going to compare Federer's serve to Sampras now? :shock:

No, the argument was in your imagination. He just said that Federer will hit more aces than Sampras. Nobody argued anything. Just stating a fact.

 

[TMF]

You're seriously going to compare Federer's serve to Sampras now? :shock:

What so shocking? They both had a great serve.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0UZ-3W-bgs


It's fine if you believe Pete has a better serve, but don't act as they are light years apart. LOL

 

[TMF]

No, the argument was in your imagination. He just said that Federer will hit more aces than Sampras. Nobody argued anything. Just stating a fact.

Thank you.

Maybe some people don't like stats which is strange. I think they are interesting to compare in just about every sports.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Hmm. That match is always bittersweet for me to watch. I think there are still facets of Sampras's game that I prefer. I may be too critical of Roger, but it seems like he made a lot of compromises post-2009. I am afraid Dimitrov is doing this now too.

Yeah, though I meant separate HL vids of them in various matches rather than the Wimbledon encounter.

Roger Federer overcompensated later in his career and toed the line of the younger generation too much instead of hedging his bets on more pure aggression and weaponry. Now, his new stick makes his game even more (relatively) mundane.

Also, who really cares about the Masters 1000 tier comparison? Lol. I don't think it's useful in comparing Sampras and Federer.

Both are extremely great and talented players.

 

[jg153040]

Yeah, though I meant separate HL vids of them in various matches rather than the Wimbledon encounter.

Roger Federer overcompensated later in his career and toed the line of the younger generation too much instead of hedging his bets on more pure aggression and weaponry. Now, his new stick makes his game even more (relatively) mundane.

Also, who really cares about the Masters 1000 tier comparison? Lol. I don't think it's useful in comparing Sampras and Federer.

Both are extremely great and talented players.

Yeah, surface and technology change forced even Fed to play more pusher tennis.

Sad times for fans like myself who love variety.