Comparing Federer and Sampras
- Thread starter McEnroeisanartist
- Start date
helloworld
Hall of Fame
Update on WTF performance/result
WTF/Master Cup
Total Titles
Federer - 6
Sampras - 5
Finals
Federer - 9
Sampras - 6
Career winning percentage
Federer: 48-11(81%)
Sampras: 35-14(71%)
Year(s) went undefeated
Federer - 5
Sampras - 0
Given out most bagels
Federer - 9
Sampras - 1
WTF/Master Cup
Total Titles
Federer - 6
Sampras - 5
Finals
Federer - 9
Sampras - 6
Career winning percentage
Federer: 48-11(81%)
Sampras: 35-14(71%)
Year(s) went undefeated
Federer - 5
Sampras - 0
Given out most bagels
Federer - 9
Sampras - 1
Compare with Lendl and Nole
WTF/Master Cup
Total Titles
Federer - 6
Sampras - 5
Lendl - 5*
Nole - 4
Finals
Federer - 9
Lendl - 9
Sampras - 6
Nole - 4
Career winning percentage
Federer: 48-11(81%)
Lendl: 39-10(80%)
Sampras: 35-14(71%)
Nole: 23-9(72%)
Year(s) went undefeated
Federer - 5
Lendl - 5
Nole - 3
Sampras - 0
Given out most bagels
Federer - 9
Nole - 2
Sampras - 1
Lendl - 1
*Lendl's 2 titles in 1983 and early 1986 were not a 5-match format.
His 3 titles in 1982, late 1986, and 1987 were a 5-match format.
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Le/I/Ivan-Lendl.aspx?t=pa&y=0&m=s&e=605
WTF/Master Cup
Total Titles
Federer - 6
Sampras - 5
Lendl - 5*
Nole - 4
Finals
Federer - 9
Lendl - 9
Sampras - 6
Nole - 4
Career winning percentage
Federer: 48-11(81%)
Lendl: 39-10(80%)
Sampras: 35-14(71%)
Nole: 23-9(72%)
Year(s) went undefeated
Federer - 5
Lendl - 5
Nole - 3
Sampras - 0
Given out most bagels
Federer - 9
Nole - 2
Sampras - 1
Lendl - 1
*Lendl's 2 titles in 1983 and early 1986 were not a 5-match format.
His 3 titles in 1982, late 1986, and 1987 were a 5-match format.
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Le/I/Ivan-Lendl.aspx?t=pa&y=0&m=s&e=605
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
1 Rios, Marcelo (CHI) 3,719
2 Sampras, Pete (USA) 3,678
3 Rafter, Patrick (AUS) 3,548
4 Korda, Petr (CZE) 3,172
Different environemnt. Meaningless to compare these.
in 90's, you had more obligation to play but ATP would
calculate 9 best results. You have more motivation to pace yourself.
Post 2000, less obligation but calculate 13 best results. Plus it's basically one surface game
entire year. You have to win all to dominate.
It's always
1. whether you dominated tennis or not
2. for how long?
For Federer, it's 2004-2007 domination over Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, Nabandian.
Even during that time, the question is Nadal.
Federer is one win away from being the only 3 players in the open era to win 1,000 matches.
Most matches won
1. Jimmy Connors 1253
2. Ivan Lendl 1071
3. Roger Federer 999
4. Guillermo Vilas 929
5. John McEnroe 875
6. Andre Agassi 870
7. Stefan Edberg 801
8. Ilie Năstase 779
9. Pete Sampras 762
10. Boris Becker 713
Most matches won
1. Jimmy Connors 1253
2. Ivan Lendl 1071
3. Roger Federer 999
4. Guillermo Vilas 929
5. John McEnroe 875
6. Andre Agassi 870
7. Stefan Edberg 801
8. Ilie Năstase 779
9. Pete Sampras 762
10. Boris Becker 713
NatF
Bionic Poster
1 Rome title isn't a record, 7 is the record...
Sampras didn't win the Roger's cup, is that a negative for him compared to Federer?
Thorondor
Rookie
As impressive as that is, weeks at no. 1 is the more complete and important measure. YE#1 is merely one of the 52 possible discretizations of 52 individual measurements into a single measurement, and thus loses much of the original information that weeks at no. 1 captures.
xFedal
Legend
I had forgotten that it's not a record I would just highlighting things that Pete has done that Fed hasn't.
NatF
Bionic Poster
And I was pointing out that Rome is quite a measly thing to mention in the grand scheme of things.
Tennisanity
Legend
LOL, that pretty much sums it up.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Amazing how a player as great as Pete on hard courts never won the RC.
AngryBirds
Semi-Pro
1000 events weren't obligatory in the 90s, thus the players can ignore those events and geared up for slams instead. Pete was the slam guy, so it's obvious he didn't take any other tournament apart from the slams seriously.Amazing how a player as great as Pete on hard courts never won the RC.
Federer has:
won 5 consecutive Wimbledon
won 5 consecutive USO
made 10 consecutive slam finals
237 consecutive weeks at #1
Agree.
1 Rome is not a record, and Sampras never won Canada and Hamburg 1000. Federer won a record 7 Cincinnati to 3 for Sampras.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Well he won Cincinnati 3 times so he did take some of the pre slam tournaments at least a little bit seriously.
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
Sampras wasn't competing with someone of Nadals caliber for ye#1
Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Tennisanity
Legend
In short, there is no comparison
D
Deleted member 744633
Guest
Unless Djokovic slows down, in a few short years he'll make both these players obsolete! 
1998 was an easy year for Sampras to reach the year end #1. There was no one chasing him and he only needed to win 4 titles that year.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
NatF
Bionic Poster
Amazing how a player as great as Pete on hard courts never won the RC.
Non mandatory status back then, he did well in the american masters. Federer has only won it twice as well - both times when it was in Toronto. The GOAT's know Cincy is where it's at
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Not gonna lie mate, that last part did sting a little bit.Non mandatory status back then, he did well in the american masters. Federer has only won it twice as well - both times when it was in Toronto. The GOAT's know Cincy is where it's at
90's Clay
Banned
Sampras also played in an era with the most polarization of conditions vs. the most varying display of specialists the game has ever seen.
Its not that difficult to dominate under homogenized conditions. (As the Big 4 have proved). Playing under slow medium conditions today would be like giving Sampras year round fast conditions in the 90s.
You can't compare the eras in this regard. Hell Nadal may not have a winning percentage over 30 percent if he played in the 90s. Nole as well. Fed wouldn't have fun playing against Specialists all year either on every surface. You have to plan for a gazillion different styles of players under various conditions
I could dominate Call of Duty Black Ops 1 year after year and destroy 95-98 percent of the competition on earth with a CONSISTENT 25 or 30-5 K/D ratio. Why? Because its the only multiplayer I like an play and and have found I can play the same way all the time and dominate playing the same way over and over with the SAME GUN the Famas and Same load out. (Nadal, Nole, Federer baseline.. No need for all court play, and different tactics and schemes), After 5 years of playing the game and getting good doing the exact same thing (Same Create a class, Same type of game style, I RARELY have ran into anyone who could up me in that game. . My domination wouldn't be as good if I had to play all 3 COD Black Ops games along with Advanced Warfare and The Older Modern Warfare games (Mens game in the 1990s) . Its too much varying Gameplay all the time to see year round domination
Last edited:
xFedal
Legend
Which Cod game is your favorite and do you actually play which console?
90's Clay
Banned
Black Ops 1 has been favorite for the PS3. Black Ops 2 was decent. 3 I didn't care for. Advanced Warfare garbage I thought
D
Deleted member 3771
Guest
Win a slam with an 85" racket. Fed tried but couldn't get it done.
xFedal
Legend
We aught to play some time.... Have you played zombies on Black ops 1?
AngryBirds
Semi-Pro
Makes you wonder why threads like this one still exist. I guess the door is not yet shut apparently.
It's a 5 years old thread. Achievements, stats and records are in favor Federer so the debate is over. However Nadal vs. Sampras is an open door for debate since their achievements are so close and arguments can go either way.