Federer beat at least one top 10 player in all of his Grand Slam wins

JennyS

Hall of Fame
1. 2003 Wimbledon: Roddick (6)
2. 2004 Australian Open:Nalbandian (8, Ferrero (3)
3. 2004 Wimbledon: Hewitt (10), Roddick (2)
4. 2004 US Open: Agassi (7), Henman (6) , Hewitt (5)
5. 2005 Wimbledon: Hewitt (2), Roddick (4)
6. 2005 US Open: Hewitt (4) , Agassi (7)
7. 2006 Australian Open: Davydenko (5)
8. 2006 Wimbledon: Ancic (10), Nadal (2)
9. 2006 US Open: Blake (7) , Davydenko (6), Roddick (10)
10. 2007 Australian Open Robredo (6), Roddick (7), Gonzalez (9)
11. 2007 Wimbledon: Haas (10), Nadal (2)
12. 2007 US Open: Roddick (5), Davydenko (4), Djokovic (3)
13. 2008 US Open: Djokovic (3), Murray (6)
14. 2009 French Open: Monfils (10), Del Potro (5)
15. 2009 Wimbledon: Roddick (6)

Overall Federer averaged 2.07 top 10 victories per Slam win

Compare that to Sampras:

1. 1990 US Open: Muster (6), Lendl (3), Agassi (4)
2. 1993 Wimbledon: Becker (4), Courier (2)
3. 1993 US Open: Chang (7)
4. 1994 Australian Open: Courier (3)
5. 1994 Wimbledon: Chang (8, Martin (9), Ivanisevic (5)
6. 1995 Wimbledon: Ivanisevic (6), Becker (4)
7. 1995 US Open: Agassi (1)
8. 1996 US Open: Ivanisevic (6) , Chang (3)
9. 1997 Australian Open: Muster (5)
10. 1997 Wimbledon: none
11. 1998 Wimbledon: none
12. 1999 Wimbledon: Henman (6), Agassi (4)
13. 2000 Wimbledon: none
14. 2002 US Open: Haas (3), Agassi (6)

Overall Sampras averaged 1.43 top 10 players per Slam victory
 
Last edited:

President

Legend
Sampras on average did play slightly higher ranked players.

However, this dispels the myth that Sampras was playing in a "stronger era" where his top rivals were more consistently making the later rounds of GS. If anything, the opposite is true.
 

President

Legend
his 1.43 top 10 players were more...top..more topper...than fed's


(troll alert)

I know you're just joking, but someone will probably use that argument. On average, it's true that the people Sampras played were slightly higher ranked (average ranking of 4.9) compared to the people Federer played (average ranking of 5.8). But that is only a difference of 1 rank, and is not really significant. In fact, I would argue that the average #6 (say, Davydenko or Roddick) of Federer's era would have better year in year out results than would had the #5 of Sampras's era (someone like Chang or Ivanisevic)
 

stapler

Professional
Well Ivanisevic beat, on average, 3 top 10 opponents in all of his GS wins, so his one title should count as 2-3 :twisted:
 
1. 2003 Wimbledon: Roddick (6)
2. 2004 Australian Open:Nalbandian (8, Ferrero (3)
3. 2004 Wimbledon: Hewitt (10), Roddick (2)
4. 2004 US Open: Agassi (7), Henman (6) , Hewitt (5)
5. 2005 Wimbledon: Hewitt (2), Roddick (4)
6. 2005 US Open: Hewitt (4) , Agassi (7)
7. 2006 Australian Open: Davydenko (5)
8. 2006 Wimbledon: Ancic (10), Nadal (2)
9. 2006 US Open: Blake (7) , Davydenko (6), Roddick (10)
10. 2007 Australian Open Robredo (6), Roddick (7), Gonzalez (9)
11. 2007 Wimbledon: Haas (10), Nadal (2)
12. 2007 US Open: Roddick (5), Davydenko (4), Djokovic (3)
13. 2008 US Open: Djokovic (3), Murray (6)
14. 2009 French Open: Monfils (10), Del Potro (5)
15. 2009 Wimbledon: Roddick (6)

Overall Federer averaged 2.07 top 10 victories per Slam win

Compare that to Sampras:

1. 1990 US Open: Muster (6), Lendl (3), Agassi (4)
2. 1993 Wimbledon: Becker (4), Courier (2)
3. 1993 US Open: Chang (7)
4. 1994 Australian Open: Courier (3)
5. 1994 Wimbledon: Chang (8, Martin (9), Ivanisevic (5)
6. 1995 Wimbledon: Ivanisevic (6), Becker (4)
7. 1995 US Open: Agassi (1)
8. 1996 US Open: Ivanisevic (6) , Chang (3)
9. 1997 Australian Open: Muster (5)
10. 1997 Wimbledon: none
11. 1998 Wimbledon: none
12. 1999 Wimbledon: Henman (6), Agassi (4)
13. 2000 Wimbledon: none
14. 2002 US Open: Haas (3), Agassi (6)

Overall Sampras averaged 1.43 top 10 players per Slam victory



wow..great thread Jenny S ..you sure do have a lot of time on your hands.whats do you do for a living?
 

JennyS

Hall of Fame
Agassi's top 10 wins

1. 1992 Wimbledon: Becker (5), Ivanisevic [8]
2. 1994 US Open: Chang (6), Martin (9), Stich (4)
3. 1995 Australian Open: Sampras (1)
4. 1999 French Open: Moya (4)
5. 1999 US Open: Kafelnikov (3), Martin (7)
6. 2000 Australian Open: Sampras (3), Kafelnikov (2)
7. 2001 Australian Open: none
8. 2003 Australian Open: LOL

total: 11
average: 1.38
 

JennyS

Hall of Fame
Nadal
1. 2005 French Open: Federer (1)
2. 2006 French Open: Ljubicic (4), Federer (1)
3. 2007 French Open: Djokovic (7), Federer (1)
4. 2008 French Open: Djokovic (3), Federer (1)
5. 2008 Wimbledon: Federer (1)
6. 2009 Australian Open: Simon (8, Federer (2)

average: 1.67
 
Last edited:

Rhino

Legend
Nice thread JennyS.
All the "Fed had easy draws" talk is rubbish.
Sampras's 2000 Wimby draw was extremely fortunate.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
How about this one:D

Federer beat 31 top 10 players while Sampras beat 20.

Thanks for the stat again Jenny.

I also think Federer met more top ten players and beat them more simply he gets to semi for final in every GS events. Sampras flamed out earlier more often and it's another reason why he doesn't face top seeded players.

Another stat that proved Federer > Sampras.
 

Ledigs

Legend
I think this stat is a bit misleading. It doesn't say anything about those who had to face more than one top 10 player and didn't win it all. Also you'd expect federer to face fewer since he has been ranked number one. He faces lower ranked players. Maybe average out the ranks of the players each beat.
 

Ledigs

Legend
The stat is also misleading bc now all
Surfaces are similar. Sampras was not facing top players on grass cause everyone sucked on grass at the time.
 

Ledigs

Legend
Also ranks have little to do with how well a player is playing at a certain time. Also who did Sampras beat at Wimbledon? People who beat top ten players! Players on hot streaks. Grass court specialists. This stat is bogus. Top ten is very close to top twenty on a good day
 

AM95

Hall of Fame
Love your threads. Perhaps you should take up a job as a tennis analyst.

I think Federer is greater than Sampras, but Sampras has to be given credit for his wins against the likes of Becker and Agassi.
 
Last edited:

Messarger

Hall of Fame
The stats are also misleading because the ranking dont reflect how good a particular player's form is on the surface.

for example, what's the big deal of winning Roddick, who is top 10, on clay?

which brings me to another point. There are lower ranked players who play out of their mind in some of the grand slams. Like Gonzo in AO'07, Youzhny in USO'06. Winning these players compared to the 'seeded' players are defintely bigger feats.

But nonetheless, interesting stat.
 

Gen

Banned
Useless figures. The quality of Sampras's top 10 is much higher than Federer's. There were a lot of top class players outside top 10 in Sampras's time, Federer played in the era of low competition. There's no surface differentiation and no indication of on-fire players whom Sampras beat on his way to the title. Is it another *******ish attempt to make Federer look better by bashing another player? Well, Sampras is a bad choice.
 
Doesn't matter. Look at some of Pete's draws, 93 Wimbledon he had to beat Agassi, Becker and Courier, when did Federer every get a draw like that?
 

kOaMaster

Hall of Fame
Doesn't matter. Look at some of Pete's draws, 93 Wimbledon he had to beat Agassi, Becker and Courier, when did Federer every get a draw like that?

how about djokovic, roddick, davydenko @ uso 2007? that's rank 3,4,5...
and don't come with "they all won almost no slams". of course they didnt. federer took them all (and nadal)...
 

sh@de

Hall of Fame
Useless figures. The quality of Sampras's top 10 is much higher than Federer's. There were a lot of top class players outside top 10 in Sampras's time, Federer played in the era of low competition. There's no surface differentiation and no indication of on-fire players whom Sampras beat on his way to the title. Is it another *******ish attempt to make Federer look better by bashing another player? Well, Sampras is a bad choice.

Oh really? That means Nadal's 6 slams were won against crappy competition too... :-?
 

Andres

G.O.A.T.
How is this stat any important? They were ranked #1 most of the time during their Slam wins.

Being #1, on average, they would only have to face a Top10 three times: QF, SF and F. Why does it matter if you average 2.04 or 1.88? How is it relevant?
 

viduka0101

Hall of Fame
Nadal
1. 2005 French Open: Federer (1)
2. 2006 French Open: Ljubicic (6), Federer (1)
3. 2007 French Open: Djokovic (7), Federer (1)
4. 2008 French Open: Djokovic (3), Federer (1)
5. 2008 Wimbledon: Federer (1)
6. 2009 Australian Open: Simon (8), Federer (2)

average: 1.67

ljubicic was no4 in the world and the 4th seed in 2006
gilles simon was ranked 8th in the world and was the 6th seed in 2009
djokovic was ranked 6th in the world and was the 6th seed in 2007
where do you get you're stats?

i'm not going to check the stats for the other players
(i was checking these because i remembered that in RG 2006 the top four seeds were in the semis so i found that suspicious)
but anyway, andres is right
being the #1 means you only have to go trough a max of 3 top ten players
these stats are unimportant
 
Last edited:

Azzurri

Legend
1. 2003 Wimbledon: Roddick (6)
2. 2004 Australian Open:Nalbandian (8, Ferrero (3)
3. 2004 Wimbledon: Hewitt (10), Roddick (2)
4. 2004 US Open: Agassi (7), Henman (6) , Hewitt (5)
5. 2005 Wimbledon: Hewitt (2), Roddick (4)
6. 2005 US Open: Hewitt (4) , Agassi (7)
7. 2006 Australian Open: Davydenko (5)
8. 2006 Wimbledon: Ancic (10), Nadal (2)
9. 2006 US Open: Blake (7) , Davydenko (6), Roddick (10)
10. 2007 Australian Open Robredo (6), Roddick (7), Gonzalez (9)
11. 2007 Wimbledon: Haas (10), Nadal (2)
12. 2007 US Open: Roddick (5), Davydenko (4), Djokovic (3)
13. 2008 US Open: Djokovic (3), Murray (6)
14. 2009 French Open: Monfils (10), Del Potro (5)
15. 2009 Wimbledon: Roddick (6)

Overall Federer averaged 2.07 top 10 victories per Slam win

Compare that to Sampras:

1. 1990 US Open: Muster (6), Lendl (3), Agassi (4)
2. 1993 Wimbledon: Becker (4), Courier (2)
3. 1993 US Open: Chang (7)
4. 1994 Australian Open: Courier (3)
5. 1994 Wimbledon: Chang (8, Martin (9), Ivanisevic (5)
6. 1995 Wimbledon: Ivanisevic (6), Becker (4)
7. 1995 US Open: Agassi (1)
8. 1996 US Open: Ivanisevic (6) , Chang (3)
9. 1997 Australian Open: Muster (5)
10. 1997 Wimbledon: none
11. 1998 Wimbledon: none
12. 1999 Wimbledon: Henman (6), Agassi (4)
13. 2000 Wimbledon: none
14. 2002 US Open: Haas (3), Agassi (6)

Overall Sampras averaged 1.43 top 10 players per Slam victory

are these year end rankings?
 

AAAA

Hall of Fame
How is this stat any important? They were ranked #1 most of the time during their Slam wins.

Being #1, on average, they would only have to face a Top10 three times: QF, SF and F. Why does it matter if you average 2.04 or 1.88? How is it relevant?

It's relevant to point out the lies spread about Sampras facing tougher competition all the time in slams. Some of the facts suggest he didn't.
 

JennyS

Hall of Fame
ljubicic was no4 in the world and the 4th seed in 2006
gilles simon was ranked 8th in the world and was the 6th seed in 2009
djokovic was ranked 6th in the world and was the 6th seed in 2007
where do you get you're stats?

i'm going to check the stats for the other players
(i was checking these because i remembered that in RG 2006 the top four seeds were in the semis so i found that suspicious)
but anyway, andres is right
being the #1 means you only have to go trough a max of 3 top ten players
these stats are unimportant

I will fix the Ljubicic one. As for Simon, I did put #8, but it showed up like a smiley symbol.
 

Andres

G.O.A.T.
It's relevant to point out the lies spread about Sampras facing tougher competition all the time in slams. Some of the facts suggest he didn't.
It does not. These are just numbers, and the numbers of the ranked players who he has faced.

For example:
Fedex faced 5 numbers #6: Robredo, Roddick, Davydenko, Murray, Henman.
Samp faced 4 numbers #6: Ivanisevic, Muster, Henman, Agassi.

Let's void Henman, as they both played him ranked the same.

You see?

Which one is tougher? Count the slams, count the titles, count the finals.

The 'Tougher Competition' theory, as I see it, does not stand for the entire field. I believe the Top10 and Top20 was tougher in the 90s, while the field itself is waaaaay deeper right now. The Top50 or the Top100, right now, is as tough and deep as it has ever been.

Probably the toughest field of all times. Yet, the Top10 and Top20... not so dreamy
 

AAAA

Hall of Fame
It does not. These are just numbers, and the numbers of the ranked players who he has faced.

For example:
Fedex faced 5 numbers #6: Robredo, Roddick, Davydenko, Murray, Henman.
Samp faced 4 numbers #6: Ivanisevic, Muster, Henman, Agassi.

Let's void Henman, as they both played him ranked the same.

You see?

Which one is tougher? Count the slams, count the titles, count the finals.

The 'Tougher Competition' theory, as I see it, does not stand for the entire field. I believe the Top10 and Top20 was tougher in the 90s, while the field itself is waaaaay deeper right now. The Top50 or the Top100, right now, is as tough and deep as it has ever been.

Probably the toughest field of all times. Yet, the Top10 and Top20... not so dreamy

Krajicek has a winning 6-4 h2h against Sampras.

Agassi has a losing h2h 14-20 against Sampras.

Agassi has way more slam titles, masters and other titles than Krajicek but who was tougher competition for Sampras?
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Also ranks have little to do with how well a player is playing at a certain time. Also who did Sampras beat at Wimbledon? People who beat top ten players! Players on hot streaks. Grass court specialists. This stat is bogus. Top ten is very close to top twenty on a good day

You make no sense at all. The way they have the draw at the GS is to have top seeded players can only face each other in a late round. If your theory is correct(which i disagree), then there's flaw in the system....they should just have the top 10 players facing each other in the 1st round, which is rediculous. I have never heard any players that said going thru the 1st week of the GS is tougher than the 2nd week. The ranking reflect how tough it is to win as you go deeper in the round, and that's always been the case.
 

JennyS

Hall of Fame
How about if we expand it to include top 20?

1. 2003 Wimbledon: Roddick (6), Schalken (12)
2. 2004 Australian Open:Nalbandian (8, Ferrero (3), Hewitt (11)
3. 2004 Wimbledon: Hewitt (10), Roddick (2), Grosjean (13)
4. 2004 US Open: Agassi (7), Henman (6) , Hewitt (5)
5. 2005 Wimbledon: Hewitt (2), Roddick (4)
6. 2005 US Open: Hewitt (4) , Agassi (7), Nalbandian (11)
7. 2006 Australian Open: Davydenko (5)
8. 2006 Wimbledon: Ancic (10), Nadal (2), Berdych (14)
9. 2006 US Open: Blake (7) , Davydenko (6), Roddick (10)
10. 2007 Australian Open Robredo (6), Roddick (7), Gonzalez (9), Djokovic (15)
11. 2007 Wimbledon: Haas (10), Nadal (2), Gasquet (14), Ferrero (18
12. 2007 US Open: Roddick (5), Davydenko (4), Djokovic (3)
13. 2008 US Open: Djokovic (3), Murray (6)
14. 2009 French Open: Monfils (10), Del Potro (5)
15. 2009 Wimbledon: Roddick (6), Soderling (12)

total: 40 (2.67 average)

Sampras:
1. 1990 US Open: Muster (6), Lendl (3), Agassi (4), McEnroe (20)
2. 1993 Wimbledon: Becker (4), Courier (2), Agassi (13)
3. 1993 US Open: Chang (7), Volkov (15), Pioline (14)
4. 1994 Australian Open: Courier (3), Lendl (17), Gustafsson (14), Martin (12)
5. 1994 Wimbledon: Chang (8, Martin (9), Ivanisevic (5)
6. 1995 Wimbledon: Ivanisevic (6), Becker (4)
7. 1995 US Open: Agassi (1), Martin (16), Courier (15)
8. 1996 US Open: Ivanisevic (6) , Chang (3)
9. 1997 Australian Open: Muster (5)
10. 1997 Wimbledon: Becker (18
11. 1998 Wimbledon: Enqvist (17) , Henman (18
12. 1999 Wimbledon: Henman (6), Agassi (4), Philippoussis (11)
13. 2000 Wimbledon: none
14. 2002 US Open: Haas (3), Agassi (6), Roddick (11)
total: 34 (2.43 average)

Federer still comes out ahead.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
The 'Tougher Competition' theory, as I see it, does not stand for the entire field. I believe the Top10 and Top20 was tougher in the 90s, while the field itself is waaaaay deeper right now. The Top50 or the Top100, right now, is as tough and deep as it has ever been.

Probably the toughest field of all times. Yet, the Top10 and Top20... not so dreamy

You got it all wrong. If the top 10 players in the 90s are better than today, then why is it the top 10 todays are making deeper round at the slam? And since the top 50-100 are better than the 90's, would logic say the top 10 players are more likely to get upset? But that's not the case.

Fact is, of all Pete and Roger's slam wins, Roger's peers(top 10) made deeper into round, where Roger had to played them more often. Get it?
 

jackson vile

G.O.A.T.
Nadal
1. 2005 French Open: Federer (1)
2. 2006 French Open: Ljubicic (4), Federer (1)
3. 2007 French Open: Djokovic (7), Federer (1)
4. 2008 French Open: Djokovic (3), Federer (1)
5. 2008 Wimbledon: Federer (1)
6. 2009 Australian Open: Simon (8, Federer (2)

average: 1.67



So everyone is better than Sampras???
 

jackson vile

G.O.A.T.
How about if we expand it to include top 20?

1. 2003 Wimbledon: Roddick (6), Schalken (12)
2. 2004 Australian Open:Nalbandian (8, Ferrero (3), Hewitt (11)
3. 2004 Wimbledon: Hewitt (10), Roddick (2), Grosjean (13)
4. 2004 US Open: Agassi (7), Henman (6) , Hewitt (5)
5. 2005 Wimbledon: Hewitt (2), Roddick (4)
6. 2005 US Open: Hewitt (4) , Agassi (7), Nalbandian (11)
7. 2006 Australian Open: Davydenko (5)
8. 2006 Wimbledon: Ancic (10), Nadal (2), Berdych (14)
9. 2006 US Open: Blake (7) , Davydenko (6), Roddick (10)
10. 2007 Australian Open Robredo (6), Roddick (7), Gonzalez (9), Djokovic (15)
11. 2007 Wimbledon: Haas (10), Nadal (2), Gasquet (14), Ferrero (18
12. 2007 US Open: Roddick (5), Davydenko (4), Djokovic (3)
13. 2008 US Open: Djokovic (3), Murray (6)
14. 2009 French Open: Monfils (10), Del Potro (5)
15. 2009 Wimbledon: Roddick (6), Soderling (12)

total: 40 (2.67 average)

Sampras:
1. 1990 US Open: Muster (6), Lendl (3), Agassi (4), McEnroe (20)
2. 1993 Wimbledon: Becker (4), Courier (2), Agassi (13)
3. 1993 US Open: Chang (7), Volkov (15), Pioline (14)
4. 1994 Australian Open: Courier (3), Lendl (17), Gustafsson (14), Martin (12)
5. 1994 Wimbledon: Chang (8, Martin (9), Ivanisevic (5)
6. 1995 Wimbledon: Ivanisevic (6), Becker (4)
7. 1995 US Open: Agassi (1), Martin (16), Courier (15)
8. 1996 US Open: Ivanisevic (6) , Chang (3)
9. 1997 Australian Open: Muster (5)
10. 1997 Wimbledon: Becker (18
11. 1998 Wimbledon: Enqvist (17) , Henman (18
12. 1999 Wimbledon: Henman (6), Agassi (4), Philippoussis (11)
13. 2000 Wimbledon: none
14. 2002 US Open: Haas (3), Agassi (6), Roddick (11)
total: 34 (2.43 average)

Federer still comes out ahead.


Jenny, you should compare the top 5 1990 - 1995 to 2001 - 2006.

This will compare both players at their prime and who they had to beat when they were at their best.
 
The point of this is? You can only beat who is put in front of you. Sampras may have faired against Federer's opposition such as well as Federer for most of those years so lets keep that into perspective as well. You are trying to demean Sampras' accomplishments more by raising Federer's accomplishments based on the "top 10". We should not hold that against Sampras either.

You think Sampras would have much of a problem with Roddick at wimbeldon or the USO? Sampras is by far the superior player and we saw what Sampras did to Roddick at the USO at 31 years of age. You include mid 30s agassi. Sampras was destroying Agassi at the USO (prime, younger Agassi) long before Federer dominated Agassi who was already much slower, older, and broken down with injuries. You include Nalbandian the slam handicapped. What has he ever done at slams. Considering the Nalbandian that showed up at the slams, what threat would he pose to Sampras? Hewitt can go either way. Hewitt matched better against Sampras in than he does against Federer of course but Hewitt was also washed up by 2006 with injuries.

Robredo, Gonzales, Davydenko? Come on. Now. Lets put some of this into perspective. What have these guys done at slams?
 
Just because player "A" had to discard of more top 10 players in a different era than player "B". Doesnt mean player B couldnt have disposed of the players that player "A" did.
 

fed_rulz

Hall of Fame
Just because player "A" had to discard of more top 10 players in a different era than player "B". Doesnt mean player B couldnt have disposed of the players that player "A" did.

Great, I completely agree with you. However, Please tell that to the sampras-****s who constantly belittle federer's competition as "weak" (sampras had to face agassi, becker, blah blah blah ..).
If we were to use your logic, then there is no reason to assume that Fed wouldn't have handled agassi, becker etc. as easily or better than sampras. And no reason to assume that Murray, nadal, djokovic, roddick, davydenko etc wouldn't be able to handle sampras, agassi, becker etc..

I'm not in favor of bringing up competition to judge a player (if fed played from 2003- 07 like he played in 2008/09, then his competition would look very strong). that's why looking at accomplishments is the most objective (and perhaps the best) way to judge a player (of course, you can make exceptions for certain unavoidables such as Laver barred from playing the majors for some amount of time, borg skipping AO, etc)

Given that, it's clear that Fed is miles ahead of sampras. thank you.

And the stats from JennyS DO show that on an average, sampras faced LESSER performing peers (relative to the field that existed then) when compared to Federer.
 
Top