Sampras has still 1 major record left - 6 years finished at no 1 but if Federer ends 2012 at the top of the rankings, Sampras won't have a single big record - all of them will be either topped by or shared with Federer.
Sampras has still 1 major record left - 6 years finished at no 1 but if Federer ends 2012 at the top of the rankings, Sampras won't have a single big record - all of them will be either topped by or shared with Federer.
Looks like Pete will be holding onto that one for a while.6 *consecutive* years. Will take a while to be broken.
Sampras has still 1 major record left - 6 years finished at no 1 but if Federer ends 2012 at the top of the rankings, Sampras won't have a single big record - all of them will be either topped by or shared with Federer.
Federer did finish number one for six consecutive years. The years ending with Wimbledon, 2004-2009.
Pretty sure Nadal took it in 2008.
Federer did finish number one for six consecutive years. The years ending with Wimbledon, 2004-2009.
Federer did finish number one for six consecutive years. The years ending with Wimbledon, 2004-2009.
I thought the years end at the....year end championship tournament
Sampras is a very arrogant past champion. Compare to Borg, McEnroe, Laver, etc. and it's a joke how much bigger his head is than theirs. I used to like him more, but I hope his records are all broken now so that he becomes a grumpy old man who complains about how much easier it is to win these days and how much tougher he had it in the 90s.
I think he (also) said that if anyone breaks his records he'd rather it be Fed.Before Fed won his 7th Wimbledon, Sampras said he's use to hear Fed breaking his record. I guess it's not that painful anymore for him.
Sampras is a very arrogant past champion. Compare to Borg, McEnroe, Laver, etc. and it's a joke how much bigger his head is than theirs. I used to like him more, but I hope his records are all broken now so that he becomes a grumpy old man who complains about how much easier it is to win these days and how much tougher he had it in the 90s.
Federer did finish number one for six consecutive years. The years ending with Wimbledon, 2004-2009.
Tell that to the ATP.No. He. Didn't.
Tell that to the ATP.
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx/?d=06.07.2009&r=1&c=#
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx/?d=07.07.2008&r=1&c=#
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx/?d=09.07.2007&r=1&c=#
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx/?d=10.07.2006&r=1&c=#
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx/?d=04.07.2005&r=1&c=#
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx/?d=05.07.2004&r=1&c=#
Tell that to the ATP.
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx/?d=06.07.2009&r=1&c=#
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx/?d=07.07.2008&r=1&c=#
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx/?d=09.07.2007&r=1&c=#
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx/?d=10.07.2006&r=1&c=#
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx/?d=04.07.2005&r=1&c=#
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx/?d=05.07.2004&r=1&c=#
End of year is arbitrary. All weeks are equal. You should also fix you're reading comprehension problem first.
I gotta interject something here:
In most (if not all) tennis circles, the year-end #1 is what people refer to when saying Sampras was 6 times the consecutive #1. Otherwise, we simply say that the player that wins the Aukland Open or Chennai Open to start the calendar year is the #1 player for that given year. There have been several instances in which a player has held the #1 ranking at some point in the season, only to not be the year-end #1. Examples include 1995 (Thomas Muster), 1999 (Carlos Moya), 2004 (Roddick), 2008 (Federer), 2012 (possibly Djokovic). So, in other words this argument about Federer being #1 between 2004-2009 is not a true comparison to Sampras' record.
If you were to use the week after wimbledon as the cutoff for one year to the next
And now you're lying. Classic ********* baseline tactic.Your claim was that Federer finished the year #1 from 2004-2009, which has been soundly disproved.
Precisely, but most of the "hard-on threads" (lol) are by people who have joined a few hours agoPeople here have a hard-on for making threads that have been made over and over again.
End of year is arbitrary. All weeks are equal. You should also fix your reading comprehension problem first.
And now you're lying. Classic ********* baseline tactic.
You claimed he finished the year #1.
The G.O.A.T.
6 *consecutive* years. Will take a while to be broken.