Federer/Sampras - Sets lost at Wimbledon en route to the Championship title

drm025 said:
Did the extenuating circumstances for lendl involve who he lost to or how close he came to not losing? No, its apples and oranges, man. He easily surpasses any 3-time USO champ.
Click to expand...

At what point do you stop applying the extenuating circumstance ?

You gave the benefit to Lendl over any other 3 time USO champ, but you dont want to do that for Fed .
 
Revenant said:
The point when it starts favoring Federer.
Click to expand...
Ive already said that I dont care about sets, the result is what matters. The goal in a match is to win. Who cares if you won sets but still lost. Why cant I just say that you favor losing a close match because youre a fed fan? Everyone has bias, dude.
 
Last edited:
Rhino said:
Yes, and his wide variety of stylish custom made Nike shoes are far and away more awesome than anything Sampras wore. At least Agassi tried.
Click to expand...

No love for the Air Oscillates? I had the black pair and really liked them. In fact I started a trend at my club. They resembled one the Jordans styles in the mid 90's.
 
drm025 said:
Ive already said that I dont care about sets, the result is what matters. The goal in a match is to win. Who cares if you won sets but still lost. Why cant I just say that you favor losing a close match because youre a fed fan? Everyone has bias, dude.
Click to expand...

That still doesn't answer the question.

1. When Roddick vs Washington was compared who have 0 majors each, you said too few majors to make a comparison.

2. When Lendl vs 3 major champ was compared, you said you are likely to favor Lendl due to extenuating circumstance.

Yet when it comes Fed vs Sampras , even after achieving 7 majors and in addition 2 more 5 set finals to No.1 player, you do not want to consider.


Your whole premise seems subjective and judgemental and not based on numbers and statistics.
 
tennisaddict said:
That still doesn't answer the question.

1. When Roddick vs Washington was compared who have 0 majors each, you said too few majors to make a comparison.

2. When Lendl vs 3 major champ was compared, you said you are likely to favor Lendl due to extenuating circumstance.

Yet when it comes Fed vs Sampras , even after achieving 7 majors and in addition 2 more 5 set finals to No.1 player, you do not want to consider.


Your whole premise seems subjective and judgemental and not based on numbers and statistics.
Click to expand...

Number of titles is a statistic as well as win-loss. I don't know why we are stuck on MEANINGLESS comparisons like Roddick and Washington, but when neither have won a title, we look at finals. Roddick also has a far superior win-loss. Even if we only look at titles here, then they are tied, and Roddick wins on win-loss. Therefore, I am consistent. Lendl's extra finals = most likely a better win-loss. Therefore, I am consistent.

Federer and Sampras tied with titles, practically tied with win-loss. Sampras won in a shorter period = dominance, Fed in a longer period = longevity. Fed has more deep runs, but more early exits. Sorry, don't care about the score in his finals loses, don't care about that in any situation. Therefore, I am consistent.

If we look at finals only, we ignore any other runs they made. I don't like to ignore matches, other people do. To each his own, but Federer's 3 first round exits at Wimbledon happened.
 
drm025 said:
If we look at finals only, we ignore any other runs they made. I don't like to ignore matches, other people do. To each his own, but Federer's 3 first round exits at Wimbledon happened.
Click to expand...

Do you think it really matters that player A had 2 1R losses while Player B has 0 1R losses when at the same time player A has 2 finals and player B has 0 finals ?

Assuming both have same number of titles , whose career would you take ?

By the way, Andre Agassi and Pat Rafter both have 2 USO. Agassi has 4 finals and Rafter has 0 finals. I am going to assume you dont know their win-loss.

Just from your memory, who is the better player ?
 
tennisaddict said:
Do you think it really matters that player A had 2 1R losses while Player B has 0 1R losses when at the same time player A has 2 finals and player B has 0 finals ?

Assuming both have same number of titles , whose career would you take ?

By the way, Andre Agassi and Pat Rafter both have 2 USO. Agassi has 4 finals and Rafter has 0 finals. I am going to assume you dont know their win-loss.

Just from your memory, who is the better player ?
Click to expand...

Because consistency matters, and if you are going to be hailed as the best in history at a particular tournament you shouldn't be losing in the first round 3 times, especially when it isn't in the twilight of your career. Rafa the teenage clay courter even made the 3rd round at Wimbledon in his first try at his first ever major, so age isn't an excuse.

In your scenario, it would depend on who has the better win-loss.

Agassi is the better all-around player, but sorry dont know off the top of my head their comparative performances at the USO. I would assume that with all those finals Agassi has the better win-loss, and he does. So, Agassi clearly.
 
drm025 said:
Because consistency matters, and if you are going to be hailed as the best in history at a particular tournament you shouldn't be losing in the first round 3 times, especially when it isn't in the twilight of your career. Rafa the teenage clay courter even made the 3rd round at Wimbledon in his first try at his first ever major, so age isn't an excuse.

In your scenario, it would depend on who has the better win-loss.

Agassi is the better all-around player, but sorry dont know off the top of my head their comparative performances at the USO. I would assume that with all those finals Agassi has the better win-loss, and he does. So, Agassi clearly.
Click to expand...
Because you only know about tennis from when Nadal picked up a racquet..
 
Sabratha said:
Because you only know about tennis from when Nadal picked up a racquet..
Click to expand...

So therefore I have less bias about tennis before the current era, all I have to go by are the numbers, and youtube, haha.

Tbh, tennis viewers from say 20 years in the future will probably better be able to decide who the best of this era was, no bias.
 
drm025 said:
So therefore I have less bias about tennis before the current era, all I have to go by are the numbers, and youtube, haha.

Tbh, tennis viewers from say 20 years in the future will probably better be able to decide who the best of this era was, no bias.
Click to expand...

Fed is the best in this era. The reason. I saw Rafa hit one handed backhand and I saw Fed hit two handed backhand.

Fed's was awesome. So, this proves that Fed adapts better.
 
Revenant said:
In the 7 Wimbledon events that Federer and Sampras each won:

Federer lost 16 sets

Sampras lost 23 sets

So Federer was far more dominant in his wins than Sampras was in his. When you factor in that Federer has 2 more Wimbledon finals, it becomes clear who the greater Wimbledon player is. Also, Federer has 14 Grasscourt titles. Sampras has 10.
Click to expand...

Fed won 4 vacuum titles, what about Sampras?
 
What's this nonsense with vacuum titles? All titles count.

You can't deflate titles like that, just because some lesser players is playing the tournament of his life and makes a final and destroys everyone in the process.
 
You can't compare player's rankings Sampras beat at Wimbledon. Back in those days, there were specialists who were far better than their rankings suggested. Now, all surfaces are homogenized, so top players can go deep in all tournaments no matter what surface they're playing. The low ranked grass specialist in Sampras era are better on grass than guys like berdych or Ferrer on grass.
 
helloworld said:
You can't compare player's rankings Sampras beat at Wimbledon. Back in those days, there were specialists who were far better than their rankings suggested. Now, all surfaces are homogenized, so top players can go deep in all tournaments no matter what surface they're playing. The low ranked grass specialist in Sampras era are better on grass than guys like berdych or Ferrer on grass.
Click to expand...

BS. Name these specialists.
 
NatF said:
BS. Name these specialists.
Click to expand...

Also , isn't it tougher if all guys are good on every surface?

Specialists should be bad on other surfaces, right? So, if top 100 has 25 specialists for each slam, then this means that 75 of them are weak competition in other slams.

Also only 25 of them. Today you have 100 "specialists", if according to helloworld they are good everywhere.
 
helloworld said:
You can't compare player's rankings Sampras beat at Wimbledon. Back in those days, there were specialists who were far better than their rankings suggested. Now, all surfaces are homogenized, so top players can go deep in all tournaments no matter what surface they're playing. The low ranked grass specialist in Sampras era are better on grass than guys like berdych or Ferrer on grass.
Click to expand...

So, does this mean specialists sucked everywhere else that their rankings were so low?

So, an era of non consistent rivals.
 
jg153040 said:
So, does this mean specialists sucked everywhere else that their rankings were so low?

So, an era of non consistent rivals.
Click to expand...

You should look at Sampras's 2000 Wimbledon. He won it without facing a single top 10 seed. He actually faced a qualifier ranked in the 200s in the semifinal!
 
Revenant said:
You should look at Sampras's 2000 Wimbledon. He won it without facing a single top 10 seed. He actually faced a qualifier ranked in the 200s in the semifinal!
Click to expand...

But doesn't W use different seeding? Based on current form and only based on grass performance.

So, seeds at W reflect current form quite well. So, his argument goes out of the window.
 
jg153040 said:
But doesn't W use different seeding? Based on current form and only based on grass performance.

So, seeds at W reflect current form quite well. So, his argument goes out of the window.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Most of Sampras's Wimbledon opponents purported to be "grasscourt specialists" had negative win-loss records on grass.
 
Revenant said:
Exactly. Most of Sampras's Wimbledon opponents purported to be "grasscourt specialists" had negative win-loss records on grass.
Click to expand...

Guys like Goran, Becker, Krajicek, Stich, Agassi, Henman, Rafter, etc. have negatitive win-loss on grass? What planet are you from?
 
If Fed was really better than Sampras, he'd be sitting with at least 9 Wimbledon right now, but he's not. That's why he loses to guys like Nadal and Djokovic on grass. Fed knows the record is 7, yet he still can't surpass it, which means he's a failure.
 
no such thing as a grass court specialist in the 90s because grass wasn't a tennis surface, it was a Wimbledon surface. What you had are clay/hard slow/fast specialists that adapted better than others on grass. Petros wasn't a grass court specialist. He's an all court player that specialized on fast / hard surfaces which translated best on grass. His movement on grass was second to none. This was enough to own others on that surface. He specialization paradigm was more evident when you had guys like Courier dominating AO, FO, while Petros owned Wimbledon / US Open and players like Andre had his hands in everything because his game /strokes were better suited to all surfaces.

That entire paradigm is completely removed from the modern tennis game and is evident by the current play styles. Due to homogenized surfaces leaning towards the slow side, you have game styles as a blend of Agassi (aggressive baseliner adapting well to multiple conditions) and Courier (better on slow, grinding but aggressive when needed with good serve and ability to work points and close when needed). Play styles like Sampras are pointless because there is no advantage to having a balls out aggressive play style in this type of environment.
 
Devilito said:
no such thing as a grass court specialist in the 90s because grass wasn't a tennis surface, it was a Wimbledon surface. What you had are clay/hard slow/fast specialists that adapted better than others on grass. Petros wasn't a grass court specialist. He's an all court player that specialized on fast / hard surfaces which translated best on grass. His movement on grass was second to none. This was enough to own others on that surface. He specialization paradigm was more evident when you had guys like Courier dominating AO, FO, while Petros owned Wimbledon / US Open and players like Andre had his hands in everything because his game /strokes were better suited to all surfaces.

That entire paradigm is completely removed from the modern tennis game and is evident by the current play styles. Due to homogenized surfaces leaning towards the slow side, you have game styles as a blend of Agassi (aggressive baseliner adapting well to multiple conditions) and Courier (better on slow, grinding but aggressive when needed with good serve and ability to work points and close when needed). Play styles like Sampras are pointless because there is no advantage to having a balls out aggressive play style in this type of environment.
Click to expand...

It's pointless because no one in the current era has the talent to play like Sampras. Federer in his early career played similar to Sampras, but more of a lesser version with worse serve and volley. If Sampras was playing today, he'd still be winning Wimbledon and US Open easily playing the same game he played in the 90s.
 
helloworld said:
It's pointless because no one in the current era has the talent to play like Sampras. Federer in his early career played similar to Sampras, but more of a lesser version with worse serve and volley. If Sampras was playing today, he'd still be winning Wimbledon and US Open easily playing the same game he played in the 90s.
Click to expand...

Spot on helloworld. Sampras would be unbeatable at Wimbledon and the us open in peak form in any era ever. People have no idea because they haven't watched his games. If Pete used his pro staff he'd still win Wimbledon and the open.
 
Revenant said:
Federer made an 8th and a 9th Wimbledon final. Sampras has never.

Federer has won a 11th, 12th, 13th, and 14th Grasscourt title. Sampras has never.

So where is the difference?
Click to expand...

The difference is, you moron, that Sampras was more vulnerable in the earlier rounds at W because of a variety of reasons, namely fast grass, less seeds, way more serve volleyers in his day, etc etc. But if he could survive the first 5 matches, which meant getting more and more match play under his belt, he would go onto win Wimbledon 100 per cent of the time.

Now compare that to today, where the FO is as good a warm up for W as Queens is, where no one comes to the net anymore, where the top seeds have greater protection against floaters in the draw, and it's plain to see why a player of Federer's ability can cruise through to 9 semifinals/finals. But once there where he was playing players of similar ability, he was far more vulnerable than Sampras was...in the biggest match of the year.

So in conclusion, only because you are a bit stupid:

Earlier rounds:

Sampras more vulnerable because of tougher conditions and tougher grass era. Continuation of FO for Fed.

Final (the biggest match in tennis):

Sampras was super man. Federer was good unless he was playing someone who actually had talent.

End of story.
 
Blocker said:
The difference is, you moron, that Sampras was more vulnerable in the earlier rounds at W because of a variety of reasons, namely fast grass, less seeds, way more serve volleyers in his day, etc etc. But if he could survive the first 5 matches, which meant getting more and more match play under his belt, he would go onto win Wimbledon 100 per cent of the time.

Now compare that to today, where the FO is as good a warm up for W as Queens is, where no one comes to the net anymore, where the top seeds have greater protection against floaters in the draw, and it's plain to see why a player of Federer's ability can cruise through to 9 semifinals/finals. But once there where he was playing players of similar ability, he was far more vulnerable than Sampras was...in the biggest match of the year.

So in conclusion, only because you are a bit stupid:

Earlier rounds:

Sampras more vulnerable because of tougher conditions and tougher grass era. Continuation of FO for Fed.

Final (the biggest match in tennis):

Sampras was super man. Federer was good unless he was playing someone who actually had talent.

End of story.
Click to expand...
Sampras was super man unless he had to face teenage Hewitt. :oops:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsSA0JRvcxw
 
For example the 1993 and 1994 Wimbledon draws for Pistol Pete;

NatF said:
In the first 4 rounds in 1994;

Sampras faced Jared Palmer, Richey Reneberg, Chuck Adams and Daniel Vacek. Only Reneberg could be considered a grass specialist with a winning 39-29 record on grass slightly better than his overall win/loss record. Everyone one else had a losing record.

Essentially even in Sampras' day most of the field were inept on grass.
Click to expand...

NatF said:
For example in 1993 for the first 4 rounds the only player who he faced who had a winning record on grass was Byron Black. Morgan, Foster and Borwick all had losing records on grass and only Morgan had played more than 15 ATP matches on the surface. This type of draw was common place for Sampras. The draw got tough for him in the quarters in general like it does nowadays.

Where are the grass specialists? Name some of them. Considering you were talking about Sampras a specialist from 6 years before he won his first is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Such dangerous early rounds :lol:
 
Sampras is 7/7 in finals against better grass courters. Federer is 7 with losses against a clay courter and a hard courter. End of story.
 
helloworld said:
Sampras is 7/7 in finals against better grass courters. Federer is 7 with losses against a clay courter and a hard courter. End of story.
Click to expand...
Sampras has a losing record on grass to pre prime Hewitt and Federer is 3-1 against the man at his peak... Says it all.
 
Sabratha said:
Sampras has a losing record on grass to pre prime Hewitt and Federer is 3-1 against the man at his peak... Says it all.
Click to expand...

They never played at Wimbledon and Sampras was on the verge of retirement when he played your idol Hewitt. Stop bringing Hewitt in a discussion between tier 1 greats. It's embarrassing. Hewitt belongs in a tier 5 conversation.
 
helloworld said:
They never played at Wimbledon and Sampras was on the verge of retirement when he played your idol Hewitt. Stop bringing Hewitt in a discussion between tier 1 greats. It's embarrassing.
Click to expand...

Fed and Sampras are not on the same tier. Nice try.

Joke comparing someone with 5 consecutive 1R/2R FO losses with someone like Federer who has 5 FO finals and several master 1000 on clay.
 
tennisaddict said:
Fed and Sampras are not on the same tier. Nice try.

Joke comparing someone with 5 consecutive 1R/2R FO losses with someone like Federer who has 5 FO finals and several master 1000 on clay.
Click to expand...

Same number of Wimbledon titles. Same number of US Open titles. Only 1 more French Open. Australian Open was still a substitute slam in the 90s. Yep, they're pretty much the same tier. Except, Fed can never sniff Sampras' 6 straight years at Number 1. :lol:
 
helloworld said:
Same number of Wimbledon titles. Same number of US Open titles. Only 1 more French Open. Australian Open was still a substitute slam in the 90s. Yep, they're pretty much the same tier. Except, Fed can never sniff Sampras' 6 straight years at Number 1. :lol:
Click to expand...

Ship has sailed, You better watch out for Novak and pray he doesn't repeat 2011. Otherwise one more player to pass Sampras.
 
helloworld said:
Same number of Wimbledon titles. Same number of US Open titles. Only 1 more French Open. Australian Open was still a substitute slam in the 90s. Yep, they're pretty much the same tier. Except, Fed can never sniff Sampras' 6 straight years at Number 1. :lol:
Click to expand...
And Sampras is behind Federer at WTF, total weeks at no.1 and consecutive weeks at no.1
 
mike danny said:
And Sampras is behind Federer at WTF, total weeks at no.1 and consecutive weeks at no.1
Click to expand...

He only led those metrics by a hair. Not enough to even make any decisive judgement based on those stats alone. Records are meant to be broken, but they're not meant to be broken by a 'hair'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Federer has lost more Grand Slam semifinals/finals in 5 sets than Nadal, Djokovic, Sampras combined
Replies
4
Views
878
CentreCourt
C
M
Comparing Federer and Sampras at ATP World Tour Finals
Replies
20
Views
3K
PONG
P
Cup8489
Least times broken en route to a Wimbledon title?
Replies
2
Views
486
zep
Z
M
Comparing Federer, Nadal, Sampras, and Borg's Grand Slam Wins
Replies
21
Views
4K
illkhiboy
illkhiboy
L
Why Federer is clearly greater than Sampras
2
Replies
61
Views
4K
Megafanoftennis100
Megafanoftennis100
Back
Top