Federer vs Sampras and Borg in Grand Slams

JennyS

JennyS

Hall of Fame
Grand Slam titles

Federer: 15
Sampras: 14

Grand Slam titles won as defending Champion:
Federer: 9
Sampras: 6

Years with at least one major:
Sampras: 10
Federer: 7

Consecutive Years with at least one major:
Sampras: 8
Federer: 7

Years with Three Majors:
Federer: 3
Sampras: 0

Consecutive Years with Three Majors:
Federer: 2
Sampras: 0

Years with multiple majors:
Federer: 5
Sampras: 4


Consecutive Years with multiple majors:
Federer: 4
Sampras: 3

Grand Slam Finals:
Federer: 20
Sampras: 18

Grand Slam Finals Record:
Federer: 15-5
Sampras: 14-4

Consecutive Grand Slam finals:
Federer: 10, 6
Sampras: 3

Consecutive Grand Slam semis:
Federer: 21
Sampras: 3

Total Grand Slam semis:
Federer: 23
Sampras: 23

Record in Grand Slam semis:
Federer: 20-3
Sampras: 18-5

Best GS Finals Streak
Federer: 16 of 17
Sampras: 8 out of 13

Wimbledon titles:
Sampras: 7
Federer: 6

Wimbledon finals:
Sampras: 7
Federer: 7

French Open titles:
Federer: 1
Sampras: 0

French Opens finals:
Federer: 4
Sampras: 0

US Open titles:
Federer: 5
Sampras: 5

US Open finals:
Sampras: 8
Federer: 5

Australian Open titles:
Federer: 3
Sampras: 2

Australian Open finals:
Federer: 4
Sampras: 3

Best Wimbledon streaks:
Federer: 5 straight titles, 7 straight finals, 6 out of 7 titles
Sampras: 7 out of 8 titles, 4 straight titles, 3 straight titles

Best French Open streaks:
Federer: 4 straight finals, 5 straight semis
Sampras: 3 straight quarterfinals, 4 out of 5 quarters

Best US Open streaks:
Federer: 5 straight titles
Sampras: 2 straight titles, 3 straight finals, 3 out of 4 titles

Best Australian Open streaks:
Federer: 6 straight semis, 3 out of 4 titles
Sampras: 3 straight semis, 3 out of 4 finals

Borg stats in next post
 
Last edited:
Federer vs Borg in Grand Slams:

Note: since Borg did not play the Australian Open, I thought it would be much more accurate to throw out all of Fed's AO results in this comparison:


Grand Slam titles
Federer: 12
Borg: 11

Grand Slam titles won as defending Champion:
Federer: 8
Borg: 8

Years with at least one major:
Borg: 8
Federer: 7

Years with multiple majors:
Federer: 5
Borg: 3

Consecutive Years with at least one major:
Borg: 8
Federer: 7

Consecutive Years with multiple majors:
Federer: 4
Borg: 3

Grand Slam Finals:
Federer: 16
Borg: 16

Grand Slam Finals Record:
Federer: 12-4
Borg: 11-5

Consecutive Grand Slam finals:
Federer: 13
Borg: 6

Consecutive Grand Slam semis:
Federer: 16
Borg: 6

Total Grand Slam semis:
Federer: 18
Borg: 17

Best GS Finals Streak:
Federer: 13 straight
Borg: 11 of 12

Wimbledon titles:
Federer: 6
Borg: 5

Wimbledon finals:
Federer: 7
Borg: 6

French Open titles:
Borg: 6
Federer: 1

French Opens finals:
Borg: 6
Federer: 4


US Open titles:
Federer: 5
Borg: 0

US Open finals:
Federer: 5
Borg: 4

Best Wimbledon streaks:
Federer: 5 straight titles, 7 straight finals, 6 out of 7 titles
Borg: 5 straight titles, 6 straight finals

Best French Open streaks:
Borg: 4 straight titles
Federer: 4 straight finals, 5 straight semis

Best US Open streaks:
Federer: 5 straight titles
Borg: 3 out of 4 finals, 2 straight finals
 
Good Stats. Federer wins handsdown. I think Federer has surpassed the Borg and Sampras with the French Open victory . The career slam and at least 3 victories in 3 of the 4 slams (showing repeatibility of achievement) - takes him into a different league. Does any other player have this record ?
 
Numbers dont tell the whole story. You can wave all the numbers around you want but it doesnt make one better or greater than the other when comparing the 70s, 90s, and 00s
 
GameSampras said:
Numbers dont tell the whole story. You can wave all the numbers around you want but it doesnt make one better or greater than the other when comparing the 70s, 90s, and 00s
Click to expand...

I agree.
The 2000's have the best players followed by the 80's, then 70's=90's.
 
GameSampras said:
Numbers dont tell the whole story. You can wave all the numbers around you want but it doesnt make one better or greater than the other when comparing the 70s, 90s, and 00s
Click to expand...

Interesting. Sampras-****s were saying for years that "14 is the king number, no matter what Roger does in term so peak dominance(ie 3 slam years) if he doesn't pass 14 he's nothing". Suddenly "numbers don't matter anymore"!
 
FedFan_2009 said:
Interesting. Sampras-****s were saying for years that "14 is the king number, no matter what Roger does in term so peak dominance(ie 3 slam years) if he doesn't pass 14 he's nothing". Suddenly "numbers don't matter anymore"!
Click to expand...



I never saw it that way anyways.. And there will be someone who comes along just as dominant as say Roger, and at the same time, Destroy his rival as well at the slams, something Roger cant do, and we will be calling that person the GOAT. Every era usually produces an all time great. Its the nature of sports. But does that mean that you can choose one over the other? Not necessarily.
 
FedFan_2009 said:
No one will be able to exceed Roger's slam total AND have postive H2H against all players. It's just possible.
Click to expand...


They said the same thing about Pete's records as well. Its all possible. Hell Jordan's and Kareem's career point total is going to be shattered by Lebron James. No one thought that was possible either. Jack Nicklaus records will be shattered by Tiger etc etc. Records werent meant to be broken and all it takes is for a player to dominate his/her era.
 
GameSampras said:
They said the same thing about Pete's records as well. Its all possible. Hell Jordan's and Kareem's career point total is going to be shattered by Lebron James. No one thought that was possible either. Jack Nicklaus records will be shattered by Tiger etc etc. Records werent meant to be broken and all it takes is for a player to dominate his/her era.
Click to expand...

Not to nitpick, but I don't think Lebron is the best candidate for that. He's played 6 seasons and he's not even a third of the way there to Kareem's record.

He's averaging 27.5 points per game over his career, so he would have to average 32-33 for the remainder of his career in order to average over 30.1. Plus he would have to retire the instant he beings to decline in order for that to happen, in which case he wouldn't even sniff Kareem's record.

Yeah I know, that wasn't your point . . . I'm just a lil' moody today. :cool:
 
TheFifthSet said:
Not to nitpick, but I don't think Lebron is the best candidate for that. He's played 6 seasons and he's not even a third of the way there to Kareem's record.

He's averaging 27.5 points per game over his career, so he would have to average 32-33 for the remainder of his career in order to average over 30.1. Plus he would have to retire the instant he beings to decline in order for that to happen, in which case he wouldn't even sniff Kareem's record.

Yeah I know, that wasn't your point . . . I'm just a lil' moody today. :cool:
Click to expand...



Not the ppg total.. But the career point total. Lebron stays healthy, theres no reason he cant overtake MJ and Kareem in this category.
 
GameSampras said:
Not the ppg total.. But the career point total. Lebron stays healthy, theres no reason he cant overtake MJ and Kareem in this category.
Click to expand...

I doubt it. It would be a huge achievement if he can do it but he'd have to continue playing the way he is playing for at least another 15 years to get the record.
 
GameSampras said:
Not the ppg total.. But the career point total. Lebron stays healthy, theres no reason he cant overtake MJ and Kareem in this category.
Click to expand...

he'll have to stay healthy and ultra-productive for another 12-13 years (37-38 years of age) if he wants pass kareem, or malone (whom is second on the list.) jordan is do-able.
 
The Lebron surpassing MJ/Kareem is a really poor example. MJ never surpassed Kareem's total and yet he's considered the best of all time. Keep in mind MJ's career ppg will not be touched and he did it while shooting a much higher career FG/FT % during a time when you were allowed to play defense. At this rate, it's a no brainer Lebron will have the all-time points record. He can just average 24-25 ppg for a LONG time and get the record.
 
btw OP, great list! I guess to expand on your list further in order to highlight how incredible Fed's achievements have been, you should divide the "Years w/ multiple majors" into "Years w/ 2 majors" & "Years w/ 3 majors" because Fed would be 3+ in the latter category, Sampras would be 1 and Borg would be 0.

edited: my bad, I just checked, I guess Sampras would be 0 as well. For some reason I had thought he'd won 3 of 4 once.
 
Last edited:
Borg could not win US open in several attempts, Sampras could not even get to French finals - They are exceptional players, no doubt. So the comparison with Federer is meaningless . Federer has moved into a league of his own. I would rather put Nadal in the same boat as Borg and Sampras if he gets a couple of more grandslams even without getting the US open. If he were to get the US open and a couple of other slams , then even he would surpass Borg and Sampras in all court game and records.

With Sampras, you could never be sure whether he would even get to the quarters at French. That way Borg is better than Sampras that he was able to get to all finals consistently other than the AO which he did not play.

And nobody has done 3 or more wins in 3 of the 4 slams - including Laver - So that closes the discussion.
 
GameSampras said:
Numbers dont tell the whole story. You can wave all the numbers around you want but it doesnt make one better or greater than the other when comparing the 70s, 90s, and 00s
Click to expand...

I agree. Edberg was better than Sampras. Sampras just had virtually no competiton starting with Wimbledon 1993.
 
Last edited:
GameSampras said:
Numbers dont tell the whole story. You can wave all the numbers around you want but it doesnt make one better or greater than the other when comparing the 70s, 90s, and 00s
Click to expand...

If numbers are close, what you say deserves closer look. But differences of this magnitude, dont lie. (not just 15 and 14 - but all court game / stats, win %)

Laver was the great of the 60's , Borg of the 70's , Lendl for the 80's , Sampras for the 90's but the winner across all era's is way beyond doubt Federer.
 
Also lets not forget Federer has accomplished all this at 27. If you showed stats for Sampras at 27 Federer would look even better.
 
Bare in mind Nadal is 23, and has already 6 Slams...

Nadal could easily exceed all three of those stats if he continues winning 2 + Slams a year throughout the rest of his career.
 
Federer vs Sampras through Wimbledon 1999/2009 (exact same age)

Grand Slam titles
Federer: 15
Sampras: 12

Grand Slam titles won as defending Champion:
Federer: 9
Sampras: 5

Years with at least one major:
Sampras: 8
Federer: 7

Consecutive Years with at least one major:
Sampras: 7
Federer: 7

Years with Three Majors:
Federer: 3
Sampras: 0

Consecutive Years with Three Majors:
Federer: 2
Sampras: 0

Years with multiple majors:
Federer: 5
Sampras: 4


Consecutive Years with multiple majors:
Federer: 4
Sampras: 3

Grand Slam Finals:
Federer: 20
Sampras: 14

Grand Slam Finals Record:
Federer: 15-5
Sampras: 12-2

Consecutive Grand Slam finals:
Federer: 10, 6
Sampras: 3

Consecutive Grand Slam semis:
Federer: 21
Sampras: 3

Total Grand Slam semis:
Federer: 23
Sampras: 18

Record in Grand Slam semis:
Federer: 20-3
Sampras: 14-4

Best GS Finals Streak
Federer: 16 of 17
Sampras: 8 out of 13

Wimbledon titles:
Sampras: 6
Federer: 6

Wimbledon finals:
Federer: 7
Sampras: 6


French Open titles:
Federer: 1
Sampras: 0

French Opens finals:
Federer: 4
Sampras: 0

US Open titles:
Federer: 5
Sampras: 4

US Open finals:
Sampras: 5
Federer: 5

Australian Open titles:
Federer: 3
Sampras: 2

Australian Open finals:
Federer: 4
Sampras: 3
 
GameSampras said:
Not the ppg total.. But the career point total. Lebron stays healthy, theres no reason he cant overtake MJ and Kareem in this category.
Click to expand...

Terrible argument. You know basketball isn't baseball right? In the NBA per game and per minute stats are what people look at..not career totals.

Jordan played less than Kareem and Karl Malone...that is why his point total is less. If Jordan played the same amount of games his points would be higher.

MJ's PER rating and PPG are unmatched. If you really did look at just numbers, then MJ would still be the GOAT.

Nobody cares if Lebron gets the most points ever...he just joins a useless list of players ranking above MJ in point total. Much like how Kobe joined the list of players scoring more points than MJ in a game (Baylor, Robinson, Kobe, Chamberlain).

MJ's foot broke in 1986 and missed most of the season. From 1993-1995 MJ retired in his prime then retired again after 1998. If MJ played those seasons he still woulda played less than Malone and Kareem and STILL woulda beaten their point total. You're argument has no weight.
 
hoodjem said:
Nope--Tilden. He never even entered the Australian, then was banned as a pro.
Click to expand...

Hoodjem, this comment made me realize...if Tilden had played the Australian and been allowed to play the French in his prime years (1920-1926)...dear Lord. The slam record certainly wouldn't be 15.

I mean, Tilden entered 23 slam tournaments (I believe) before being banned as a pro - over a span of 15 years. That's 1.5 slams a year. And he won ten! If he had played four slams a year, every year... See you, Pete Sampras, Roger Federer. Bye, bye fifteen.
 
tudwell said:
Hoodjem, this comment made me realize...if Tilden had played the Australian and been allowed to play the French in his prime years (1920-1926)...dear Lord. The slam record certainly wouldn't be 15.

I mean, Tilden entered 23 slam tournaments (I believe) before being banned as a pro - over a span of 15 years. That's 1.5 slams a year. And he won ten! If he had played four slams a year, every year... See you, Pete Sampras, Roger Federer. Bye, bye fifteen.
Click to expand...

true, but if it was 8 slams a year instead of the current 4, and federer continues to win proportionately to his career he'd have 30! My god, imagine if there were 12, 16, or even 20 slams! Federer would be holding 50 or 60 slams!!

Wow.
 
tudwell said:
Hoodjem, this comment made me realize...if Tilden had played the Australian and been allowed to play the French in his prime years (1920-1926)...dear Lord. The slam record certainly wouldn't be 15.

I mean, Tilden entered 23 slam tournaments (I believe) before being banned as a pro - over a span of 15 years. That's 1.5 slams a year. And he won ten! If he had played four slams a year, every year... See you, Pete Sampras, Roger Federer. Bye, bye fifteen.
Click to expand...

So basically the entire GOAT debate is moot. Bill Tilden is IT...
 
BallzofSkill said:
true, but if it was 8 slams a year instead of the current 4, and federer continues to win proportionately to his career he'd have 30! My god, imagine if there were 12, 16, or even 20 slams! Federer would be holding 50 or 60 slams!!

Wow.
Click to expand...

I'm not just making up random numbers. Throughout the history of the sport, there have been four tournaments that comprised the Grand Slam. Before the fifties or so, many people did not play all these tournaments. Europeans, for example, could get by on two with little trouble, but traveling to America or Australia (especially the latter) took days, even weeks by boat and was very strenuous. Thus, Bill Tilden played Wimbledon twice in his prime, the French and Australian never. He won 8 of the 9 slams that he played from 1920-1926 (his best years, when he was considered the number one player).

All I'm saying is if Tilden had played on a tour organized more similarly to today's and had today's luxury of easy travel, he'd have a mind-bogglingly large amount of majors. Of course then the level of competition probably would have been a little higher, so maybe he wouldn't have won that many but I still doubt Sampras's 14 and now Federer's 15 would be records. Not just Tilden but other guys like Laver, Rosewall, Gonzalez could have won lots and lots of majors had they played in a time that was organized like the present.
 
Time organized like present = more players + better training + better raquets = tougher competition = tilden wins one major with some luck
 
GuillermoR said:
Time organized like present = more players + better training + better raquets = tougher competition = tilden wins one major with some luck
Click to expand...

Bill Tilden was probably the smartest guy to ever play tennis. He knew the game inside and out. He knew exactly where to hit the ball to give his opponent the hardest shot, he could pick apart his opponent's weaknesses. Like a Nalbandian or a Wilander except with more fire power. I mean, the guy wrote books on how to play tennis. He was a baseliner with a big serve and big groundies. I think he would fit right in with modern racquets. Better training benefits everybody, Tilden included, so that wouldn't make it harder for him to win. More players and a deeper field are the only things stopping him - which, I admit, is a big factor.

But even taking into account the relative weakness of his competition, he was soooooo far above the rest of the players of his era. He went undefeated in 1923 and at one point won 57 consecutive games - that's 9 bagel sets in a row and some change. I think a talent like that would translate well to any era, especially Tilden, the way he obsessed over the game, learning the best strategies, the best technique, studying his opponents, always training and improving. He wasn't the best in his era for nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

JennyS
Federer has individual records at every Slam!
Replies
8
Views
1K
nolefam_2024
nolefam_2024
M
Grand Slam Semifinal Streaks of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Sampras
Replies
22
Views
2K
Navdeep Srivastava
N
JennyS
Roger Federer's 15 Most Impressive Grand Slam Achievements
Replies
19
Views
2K
JennyS
JennyS
D
Strength of the top 10 through the 'eras'
Replies
14
Views
1K
bjsnider
bjsnider
M
Federer's 2013 Compared to Sampras' 2001
Replies
3
Views
996
sheq
sheq
Back
Top