Federer - the last 6 years compared to Sampras' prime 6 years

[McEnroeisanartist]

During Sampras prime, or at least the years he finished #1, 1993-1998, his record was 415-84 (83.17%).

Compare that to Federer who has certainly been out of his prime since 1999, his record from 2010 to present is 363-73 (83.26%).

Is Federer that extraordinary that his overall win/loss record in his post-prime is better than one of the all time greats in his prime? How has Federer managed to motivate himself for smaller tournaments in a way that Sampras did not during his prime? Do these stats reveal something about their level of competition/playing surface?

 

[Donnie Brasco]

During Sampras prime, or at least the years he finished #1, 1993-1998, his record was 415-84 (83.17%).

Compare that to Federer who has certainly been out of his prime since 1999, his record from 2010 to present is 363-73 (83.26%).

Is Federer that extraordinary that his overall win/loss record in his post-prime is better than one of the all time greats in his prime? How has Federer managed to motivate himself for smaller tournaments in a way that Sampras did not during his prime? Do these stats reveal something about their level of competition/playing surface?

I think that Federer is just better plain and simple, but Sampras did play in an era with vastly different surfaces. Both reasons would affect their win/loss ratio.

 

[Chanwan]

I think that Federer is just better plain and simple, but Sampras did play in an era with vastly different surfaces. Both reasons would affect their win/loss ratio.

good answer.
Also, how many slams and WTF's did Sampras win in that period compared to Fed's last 5 years? Something like 10-4 (didn't count) and 2-2?
That's obviously more important than winning percentage.

 

[Deleted member 733170]

He ain't called The Maestro for nothing.

 

[BGod]

Just can't get the Slam wins is all....

 

[AngryBirds]

During Sampras prime, or at least the years he finished #1, 1993-1998, his record was 415-84 (83.17%).

Compare that to Federer who has certainly been out of his prime since 1999, his record from 2010 to present is 363-73 (83.26%).

Is Federer that extraordinary that his overall win/loss record in his post-prime is better than one of the all time greats in his prime? How has Federer managed to motivate himself for smaller tournaments in a way that Sampras did not during his prime? Do these stats reveal something about their level of competition/playing surface?

Fed has won 2 slams in the past 5 years. End thread.

 

[Fedfan34]

During Sampras prime, or at least the years he finished #1, 1993-1998, his record was 415-84 (83.17%).

Compare that to Federer who has certainly been out of his prime since 1999, his record from 2010 to present is 363-73 (83.26%).

Is Federer that extraordinary that his overall win/loss record in his post-prime is better than one of the all time greats in his prime? How has Federer managed to motivate himself for smaller tournaments in a way that Sampras did not during his prime? Do these stats reveal something about their level of competition/playing surface?

I, and Fed himself, would take Pete's winning percentage over these last six years given he also gets to win 10 slams in that period as well.
End thread.

 

[schmke]

I, and Fed himself, would take Pete's winning percentage over these last six years given he also gets to win 10 slams in that period as well.
End thread.

Exactly. Pete didn't really care about non-slams. Compare records in the majors over that period and there is likely a big difference.

 

[Fedfan34]

Exactly. Pete didn't really care about non-slams. Compare records in the majors over that period and there is likely a big difference.

Pete cared about all his tournaments he entered, especially during that period because he was trying to set the year end #1 record. But obviously, Fed having a higher winning percentage doesn't compare to the fact that Pete won 10 slams in that period.

 

[schmke]

Pete cared about all his tournaments he entered, especially during that period because he was trying to set the year end #1 record. But obviously, Fed having a higher winning percentage doesn't compare to the fact that Pete won 10 slams in that period.

So, perhaps "didn't really care" was too strong. But he didn't care as much about them unless it was nearing year-end and he needed to protect his #1 ranking.

You can see this from his winning percentage at the different levels of events. From 1993 thru 1998:

Grand Slams: 89%
Tour Finals: 75%
Masters: 77%
Davis Cup: 77%
Other: 84%

"Other" events aren't nearly as deep so you'd expect a high winning percentage. But the more meaningful tournaments other than the Grand Slams have a winning percentage under 80%, really the mid-70% range, while the Grand Slams are nearly 90%. Tour Finals you might expect would be lower due to top opponents, but even accounting for easy first round matches at majors, that is a pretty big gap in winning percentage.

Compare to Fed 2010 to present:

Grand Slams: 83%
Tour Finals: 79%
Masters: 79%
Davis Cup: 85%
Other: 88%

He has a far smaller spread which shows remarkable consistency, but I think highlights how Pete at least peaked more for Grand Slams than other events.

Now, Fed's 2004-2009 is pretty remarkable:

Grand Slams: 94%
Tour Finals: 78%
Masters: 84%
Davis Cup: 100%
Other: 94%

Other than the Tour Finals number where one can understand he may not have cared so much by year-end, those are pretty astounding winning percentages.

 

[Fedfan34]

So, perhaps "didn't really care" was too strong. But he didn't care as much about them unless it was nearing year-end and he needed to protect his #1 ranking.

You can see this from his winning percentage at the different levels of events. From 1993 thru 1998:

Grand Slams: 89%
Tour Finals: 75%
Masters: 77%
Davis Cup: 77%
Other: 84%

"Other" events aren't nearly as deep so you'd expect a high winning percentage. But the more meaningful tournaments other than the Grand Slams have a winning percentage under 80%, really the mid-70% range, while the Grand Slams are nearly 90%. Tour Finals you might expect would be lower due to top opponents, but even accounting for easy first round matches at majors, that is a pretty big gap in winning percentage.

Compare to Fed 2010 to present:

Grand Slams: 83%
Tour Finals: 79%
Masters: 79%
Davis Cup: 85%
Other: 88%

He has a far smaller spread which shows remarkable consistency, but I think highlights how Pete at least peaked more for Grand Slams than other events.

Now, Fed's 2004-2009 is pretty remarkable:

Grand Slams: 94%
Tour Finals: 78%
Masters: 84%
Davis Cup: 100%
Other: 94%

Other than the Tour Finals number where one can understand he may not have cared so much by year-end, those are pretty astounding winning percentages.

FINALLY a post that uses data to support opinions.
+10 sir, +10.

 

[Russeljones]

During Sampras prime, or at least the years he finished #1, 1993-1998, his record was 415-84 (83.17%).

Compare that to Federer who has certainly been out of his prime since 1999, his record from 2010 to present is 363-73 (83.26%).

Is Federer that extraordinary that his overall win/loss record in his post-prime is better than one of the all time greats in his prime? How has Federer managed to motivate himself for smaller tournaments in a way that Sampras did not during his prime? Do these stats reveal something about their level of competition/playing surface?

It's all about the level of competition and the comparative advantage Federer enjoys on clay in any comparison with Pete.