Federer's and Sampras' Opponents in Winning 7th Wimbledon

M

McEnroeisanartist

Hall of Fame
In winning his 7th Wimbledon, the average ranking of Federer's opponent was 37. He never played a player ranked outside the top 75.

In winning his 7th Wimbledon, the average ranking of Sampras' opponent was 88, he played 4 opponents ranked outside the top 75.

In addition, In winning his 7th French Open, the average of Nadal's opponent was 54, he played 2 opponents ranked outside the top 100.
 
What was the average rank in the final/semifinal/quarterfinal?

Sampras and Federer can't be compared 1 to 1. Sampras ruled on the faster grass, Roger's game suited to being aggressive from the baseline, on mediumpaced lowbouncing courts.
 
This seems like overanalysis to the point of absurdity. First, rankings in tennis are often not very indicative of much. Great players (Serena and Sharapova are recent examples) can drop way down in the rankings because they've been out with injuries, played fewer tournaments for other reasons, etc. Second, players sometimes go on a great run and play a terrific tournament beyond what their rankings indicate, so beating lower ranked players doesn't necessarily indicate an easy time to a title. Also, averages are unduly affected by outliers, one or two of which can greatly skew the data, so are often less indicative than a median, for example.
 
joeri888 said:
Sampras ruled on the faster grass, Roger's game suited to being aggressive from the baseline, on mediumpaced lowbouncing courts.
Click to expand...


Disagree! Roger would have "ruled" on fast grass as well. Sampras however would not have fared well in today's slower conditions.
 
Besides Wimbledon, the final question is who's the greatest grass court player.

I say Federer because he accomplished more.

*8 W finals to Pete's 7 finals
*more grass titles
*holds the record for most consecutive win on grass



Who had tougher adversaries is subjective. However, one that fact that favors Roger...he beat more top 10 players
 
Federer's winning 7 Wimbledon is a lot more impressive than what Pete did since Federer did it in an era where serve and volley is obsolete and there are a lot more baseliners who can vie for the title on grass. In Pete's day it almost exclusively belonged to S/V's which substantially whittled down the field.
 
Unfortunately for Fed he lost the most memorable Wimbledon final that he played in when he lost to Nadal in the greatest match ever.
 
ollinger said:
This seems like overanalysis to the point of absurdity. First, rankings in tennis are often not very indicative of much. Great players (Serena and Sharapova are recent examples) can drop way down in the rankings because they've been out with injuries, played fewer tournaments for other reasons, etc. Second, players sometimes go on a great run and play a terrific tournament beyond what their rankings indicate, so beating lower ranked players doesn't necessarily indicate an easy time to a title. Also, averages are unduly affected by outliers, one or two of which can greatly skew the data, so are often less indicative than a median, for example.
Click to expand...

Great points. Federer's opponent ranking median was 33 and Sampras' was 78.

Federer played a prior Wimbledon semifinalist (Malisse), a 3 time grand slam finalist with 6 other grand slams (Murray), and a 5 time grand slam champion and defending champion/#1 ranked player (Djokovic).

Sampras played a one time Grand Slam semifinalist (who beat him in an Australian Open quarters), and Pat Rafter (2 time grand slam champion).
 
TheNatural said:
Unfortunately for Fed he lost the most memorable Wimbledon final that he played in when he lost to Nadal in the greatest match ever.
Click to expand...

Well, considering it wasn't even the greatest match of that year, how could it be the best one ever? It was an overrated choke-fest with a few nice passes here and there.

babies-cry.jpg
 
Fed faced weaker opposition in his 7 Wimbledon finals. Only 2 of his 7 final wins were against multiple slam champs (both v Nadal), 4 of the 7 Sampras finals that he won were against multiple slam champs(Courier, Becker, Agassi, rafter)
 
really bad comparison. rankings were hell of a lot less absolute in 90s cos of court differences.

nowadays, player ranked 10 is better than player ranked 20 everywhere. in 90s, there were grasscourt specialists ranked 50+ that were bigger threats than top 10 claycourters. i mean tommy muster was world number 1 and never won a match at wimby

u would regularly get guys ranked in the 20s or 30s making it to QFs and SFs, beating top seeds along the way
 
We cant compare the old grass with the new grass. Back in the days we could hardly see a rally form the baseline and now we can hardly see a player going to the net.
 
TMF said:
Besides Wimbledon, the final question is who's the greatest grass court player.

I say Federer because he accomplished more.

*8 W finals to Pete's 7 finals
*more grass titles
*holds the record for most consecutive win on grass



Who had tougher adversaries is subjective. However, one that fact that favors Roger...he beat more top 10 players
Click to expand...

But Federer doesn't hold a record for out right most titles at a major.

US Open: 5 - Federer, Connors, Sampras
AUS Open: 4 - Federer, Agassi
WIM: 7 - Federer, Sampras
RG: 7 - Nadal

So Nadal stands alone at a major, Federer otoh does not, he is not the out right leader in any major...
 
The_Order said:
But Federer doesn't hold a record for out right most titles at a major.

US Open: 5 - Federer, Connors, Sampras
AUS Open: 4 - Federer, Agassi
WIM: 7 - Federer, Sampras
RG: 7 - Nadal

So Nadal stands alone at a major, Federer otoh does not, he is not the out right leader in any major...
Click to expand...

Stay on topic...this thread is NOT about Nadal but between Fed/Sampras.
 
TheNatural said:
Fed faced weaker opposition in his 7 Wimbledon finals. Only 2 of his 7 final wins were against multiple slam champs (both v Nadal), 4 of the 7 Sampras finals that he won were against multiple slam champs(Courier, Becker, Agassi, rafter)
Click to expand...

True, very true. Fed played a bunch of push overs, Nadal was his only real challenge and he almost lost to him there twice.
 
Magnus said:
Well, considering it wasn't even the greatest match of that year, how could it be the best one ever? It was an overrated choke-fest with a few nice passes here and there.

babies-cry.jpg
Click to expand...
Totally agreeing here. Federer played pretty bad in that 2008 final.
 
The_Order said:
But Federer doesn't hold a record for out right most titles at a major.

US Open: 5 - Federer, Connors, Sampras
AUS Open: 4 - Federer, Agassi
WIM: 7 - Federer, Sampras
RG: 7 - Nadal

So Nadal stands alone at a major, Federer otoh does not, he is not the out right leader in any major...
Click to expand...
That's gotta be the WAFAOAT (weakest anti-Federer argument of all time).
 
Fugazi said:
That's gotta be the WAFAOAT (weakest anti-Federer argument of all time).
Click to expand...

But at least it's a fact unlike these beauties:

- Fed would've beat Nadal in the US Open had they played there
- Fed would have a winning h2h against Nadal if they didn't play so much on clay
- Olympic gold in doubles is equivalent to Olympic gold in singles
- Fed wouldn't shank any shots if he used a 100sq in racquet
- Novak played better in every other year at the USO than 2010

And I'm sure there's more that I can't think of atm.
 
TheNatural said:
Unfortunately for Fed he lost the most memorable Wimbledon final that he played in when he lost to Nadal in the greatest match ever.
Click to expand...

It wasn't the greatest match ever. To be honest I'm proud that Federer at his worst could even make it to 5 sets, and his comeback was the only reason that match is rated as highly, though both players choked quite badly.Nice to see you think it's better than any match sampras played though.

TheNatural said:
Fed faced weaker opposition in his 7 Wimbledon finals. Only 2 of his 7 final wins were against multiple slam champs (both v Nadal), 4 of the 7 Sampras finals that he won were against multiple slam champs(Courier, Becker, Agassi, rafter)
Click to expand...

LMAO. Becker in a Wimby final TEN years after first winning. 10 years after Sampras first won he was retired having been beaten by Bastl the year before in the second round :lol: Credit should go to Boris for even making the final, not to Pete for beating up an old champion.

Agassi was not very good on grass, his wimbledon win was a total surprise, even more so than Djokovic winning, who oldman Federer just schooled.

Courier was also not a good grass player and won all his slams in a 3 years period.

Rafter almost lost to baby Fed on grass.

Also, why do you look at just finals? Beating a multislam champion earlier on,indicates a tougher draw. Looking at the amount of wins against a multi slam champion within a wimbledon title run, Sampras defeated 7, Federer defeated 8. If we look at all wins against multi slam winners then Fed's rises to 9 (with the win over Sampras in 2003)

Considering Fed often had to meet these multi slam champions early on rather than just in the final, his 8 finals compared to sampras's 7 is even more amazing! harder time gettig there and he STILL does better. What a player :)
 
The_Order said:
But at least it's a fact unlike these beauties:

- Fed would've beat Nadal in the US Open had they played there
- Fed would have a winning h2h against Nadal if they didn't play so much on clay
- Olympic gold in doubles is equivalent to Olympic gold in singles
- Fed wouldn't shank any shots if he used a 100sq in racquet
- Novak played better in every other year at the USO than 2010

And I'm sure there's more that I can't think of atm.
Click to expand...

1. When are we talking about? If Fed played nads at the US Open every year they played in the French open he would have beaten Nadal there, probably more than once, maybe having the lead. Federer beat Nadal on grass 2 years in a row before losing a very close match in 2008. in 2005, 2006, 2007 and maybe even 2008 Fed would have had a clear edge. In 2005 he beat nadal from 2 sets down on a slow hardcourt in Miami, as well as beating him in straights at the TMC in 2006 and 2007 and losing a close 3 setter at Dubai in 2006. Nadal was doing better on grass vs Federer at that time.

2. Well he might have a slight edge. But I don't wish to erase the clay results, they have every bit as much credibility as any other surface. The only issue I have is that so many more matches have been on clay. If it were more evenly spread over surfaces, Federer would be behind, but not quite as much.

3.Olympic gold is olympic gold, but obviously nadal did better in the singles.

4. He would shank less, but he probably wouldn't be as comfortable with it and overall his game would be worse.

5. He pretty much did though. Novak did great on defense in 2010 but his serve was crap and he never attacked like he can and was only in the final because he managed some amazing shots almost out of desperation in the semis. Overall both Fed and him were crap, and neither barely deserved to be in he final. In the final Djokovic played some great tennis at times but it was playing not to lose, not playing to win.
 
Towser83 said:
It wasn't the greatest match ever. To be honest I'm proud that Federer at his worst could even make it to 5 sets, and his comeback was the only reason that match is rated as highly, though both players choked quite badly.Nice to see you think it's better than any match sampras played though.



LMAO. Becker in a Wimby final TEN years after first winning. 10 years after Sampras first won he was retired having been beaten by Bastl the year before in the second round :lol: Credit should go to Boris for even making the final, not to Pete for beating up an old champion.

Agassi was not very good on grass, his wimbledon win was a total surprise, even more so than Djokovic winning, who oldman Federer just schooled.

Courier was also not a good grass player and won all his slams in a 3 years period.

Rafter almost lost to baby Fed on grass.

Also, why do you look at just finals? Beating a multislam champion earlier on,indicates a tougher draw. Looking at the amount of wins against a multi slam champion within a wimbledon title run, Sampras defeated 7, Federer defeated 8. If we look at all wins against multi slam winners then Fed's rises to 9 (with the win over Sampras in 2003)

Considering Fed often had to meet these multi slam champions early on rather than just in the final, his 8 finals compared to sampras's 7 is even more amazing! harder time gettig there and he STILL does better. What a player :)
Click to expand...

Fed has mostly beaten duds in his slam finals. He has only won 4 slam finals versus players with a slam tally that is 4 or more( 2 v Kid Nadal, 1 v old Agassi, 1 v Joker), Sampras won 6 finals versus players with a tally of 4 or more slams, and Nadal won 8 slam finals vs a player with a tally of 4 or more slams (6 v fed, 2 v Joker).
 
When u win 14 slams in 6 years and one other guy hoovers up most of the rest, u dont have a lot of opportunity to win finals against multi-slam champs. mostly because u have prevented them from existing

pretty much all the metrics for comparing the fields in sampras n federer's times mentioned in this here are total crap

this is just a dumb, dumb thread
 
Idiotic comparison. Because of the surface AND game style homogenization the tops players will consistently do better in a tournament no matter the surface. Back in the 90s you might have had a lower ranked player that was a beast on Grass. Same thing went for Clay. Someone ranked 50 in the world maybe be ranked 10th or better on Clay depending on his game style. In the past 30 years Grass has been the most specialized and underplayed surface so many tops players were totally ass on it while some lower ranked players that had suited games for it did extremely well. Did your stats teach you that?
 
TheNatural said:
Fed has mostly beaten duds in his slam finals. He has only won 4 slam finals versus players with a slam tally that is 4 or more( 2 v Kid Nadal, 1 v old Agassi, 1 v Joker), Sampras won 6 finals versus players with a tally of 4 or more slams, and Nadal won 8 slam finals vs a player with a tally of 4 or more slams (6 v fed, 2 v Joker).
Click to expand...

Sampras beat mainly people who were past their slam winning days, or not cut out to win on the surface he played them on (like Agassi at Wimbledon) What a shame Pete didn't stick around to take more beatings from Federer.

As I've said and you have ignored, Federer has defeated 8 multi slam champions in his wimbledon victories, 9 in all (includig the year he beat Sampras but didn't win the title).Sampras has only defeated 7. The fact that Sampras beat more in finals, just means that Sampras avoided these players until the final and Federer had the bad luck to play them earlier on. Despite this he stillmade more finals than Sampras.

Also the difference between 6 and 4, is pretty slim. And why is 4 slams or more the magic number? Probably because it means you can count Courier :lol: If Pete was good enough, Courier, Agassi and others wouldn't have even got to 4 slams.
 
TheNatural said:
Fed has mostly beaten duds in his slam finals. He has only won 4 slam finals versus players with a slam tally that is 4 or more( 2 v Kid Nadal, 1 v old Agassi, 1 v Joker), Sampras won 6 finals versus players with a tally of 4 or more slams, and Nadal won 8 slam finals vs a player with a tally of 4 or more slams (6 v fed, 2 v Joker).
Click to expand...

That's a fantastic argument since most of Federer's finalists aren't done with their careers. It's not inconceivable that, say, Andy Murray wins four slams.

And also, why four slams? Because it favors Pete? Why not five slams? That narrows it to 5-4 to Sampras. Or eleven slams? Then it's 2-0 to Federer.


Or if you use an actually useful benchmark and consider all their respective finalists who won at least one slam in their career, it's even at 10 all. And Murray will likely win a slam, giving Federer 13, and even if he doesn't, he's still better than Pioline, Martin, Ivanisevic, Chang, Moya, and probably even Rafter.

And as is perfunctory in these silly conversations about slam finalists, I will point out that it does, in fact, take seven matches to win a slam.
 
Another factor to consider is when Sampras won his 7th Wimbledon title, there were only 16 seeds. Now there are 32. So now, even with luck of the draw, if the seeds hold up, then you know you will be playing a higher ranked player as early as the third round. I would expect the average ranking to be better since they started using 32 seeds.
 
Sampras has mostly beaten duds in his slam finals. He has only won 5 slam finals versus players who spent 13 or more weeks at No. 1 (1 v Courier, 4 v Agassi), Federer has won 9 finals versus players who spent 13 or more weeks at No. 1.
 
Honestly, what are you hoping to demonstrate by this *analysis*? There are only 7 opponents, it's not like there are hundreds. Absurd.

This thread has gone the way of so many others, to hell.
 
TheNatural said:
Fed has mostly beaten duds in his slam finals. He has only won 4 slam finals versus players with a slam tally that is 4 or more( 2 v Kid Nadal, 1 v old Agassi, 1 v Joker), Sampras won 6 finals versus players with a tally of 4 or more slams, and Nadal won 8 slam finals vs a player with a tally of 4 or more slams (6 v fed, 2 v Joker).
Click to expand...

Nadal, Djokovic, Agassi, Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Murray...Yup, all duds, especially when compared to Chang, Moya, Goran, Rafter etc.

Fed has had three Major finals that seemed Dud-ish: Phillippoussis, Baghdatis and Gonzales. Gonzo was playing incredible tennis at the 2007 AO, but whatever, let's call him a dud.

By the same criteria, Sampras beat Todd Martin and Piolene (x2). I count 3 Major wins over "duds" for each.
 
Here are their whole Wimbledon records:

Pete Sampras
1989 Wimbledon
R128: Todd Woodbridge def. Pete Sampras (7-5, 7-6, 5-7, 6-3)

1990 Wimbledon
R128: Christo Van Rensburg def. Pete Sampras (7-6, 7-5, 7-6)

1991 Wimbledon
R128: Pete Sampras def. Danilo Marcelino (6-1, 6-2, 6-2)
R64: Derrick Rostagno def. Pete Sampras (6-4, 3-6, 7-6, 6-4)

1992 Wimbledon
R128: Pete Sampras def. Andrei Cherkasov (6-1, 6-3, 6-3)
R64: Pete Sampras def. Todd Woodbridge (7-6, 7-6, 6-7, 6-4)
R32: Pete Sampras def. Scott Davis (6-1, 6-0, 6-2)
R16: Pete Sampras def. Arnaud Boetsch (6-3, 7-5, 7-6)
QF: Pete Sampras def. Michael Stich (6-3, 6-2, 6-4)
SF: Goran Ivanisevic def. Pete Sampras (6-7, 7-6, 6-4, 6-2)

1993 Wimbledon
R128: Pete Sampras def. Neil Borwick (6-7, 6-3, 7-6, 6-3)
R64: Pete Sampras def. Jamie Morgan (6-4, 7-6, 6-4)
R32: Pete Sampras def. Byron Black (6-4, 6-1, 6-1)
R16: Pete Sampras def. Andrew Foster (6-1, 6-2, 7-6)
QF: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-2, 6-2, 3-6, 3-6, 6-4)
SF: Pete Sampras def. Boris Becker (7-6, 6-4, 6-4)
FR: Pete Sampras def. Jim Courier (7-6, 7-6, 3-6, 6-3)

1994 Wimbledon
R128: Pete Sampras def. Jared Palmer (7-6, 7-5, 6-3)
R64: Pete Sampras def. Richey Reneberg (6-3, 6-4, 6-2)
R32: Pete Sampras def. Chuck Adams (6-1, 6-2, 6-4)
R16: Pete Sampras def. Daniel Vacek (6-4, 6-1, 7-6)
QF: Pete Sampras def. Michael Chang (6-4, 6-1, 6-3)
SF: Pete Sampras def. Todd Martin (6-4, 6-4, 3-6, 6-3)
FR: Pete Sampras def. Goran Ivanisevic (7-6, 7-6, 6-0)

1995 Wimbledon
R128: Pete Sampras def. Karsten Braasch (7-6, 6-7, 6-4, 6-1)
R64: Pete Sampras def. Tim Henman (6-2, 6-3, 7-6)
R32: Pete Sampras def. Jared Palmer (4-6, 6-4, 6-1, 6-2)
R16: Pete Sampras def. Greg Rusedski (6-4, 6-3, 7-5)
QF: Pete Sampras def. Shuzo Matsuoka (6-7, 6-3, 6-4, 6-2)
SF: Pete Sampras def. Goran Ivanisevic (7-6, 4-6, 6-3, 4-6, 6-3)
FR: Pete Sampras def. Boris Becker (6-7, 6-2, 6-4, 6-2)

1996 Wimbledon
R128: Pete Sampras def. Richey Reneberg (4-6, 6-4, 6-3, 6-3)
R64: Pete Sampras def. Mark Philippoussis (7-6, 6-4, 6-4)
R32: Pete Sampras def. Karol Kucera (6-4, 6-1, 6-7, 7-6)
R16: Pete Sampras def. Cedric Pioline (6-4, 6-4, 6-2)
QF: Richard Krajicek def. Pete Sampras (7-5, 7-6, 6-4)

1997 Wimbledon
R128: Pete Sampras def. Mikael Tillstrom (6-4, 6-4, 6-2)
R64: Pete Sampras def. Hendrik Dreekmann (7-6, 7-5, 7-5)
R32: Pete Sampras def. Byron Black (6-1, 6-2, 6-2)
R16: Pete Sampras def. Petr Korda (6-4, 6-3, 6-7, 6-7, 6-4)
QF: Pete Sampras def. Boris Becker (6-1, 6-7, 6-1, 6-4)
SF: Pete Sampras def. Todd Woodbridge (6-2, 6-1, 7-6)
FR: Pete Sampras def. Cedric Pioline (6-4, 6-2, 6-4)

1998 Wimbledon
R128: Pete Sampras def. Dominik Hrbaty (6-3, 6-3, 6-2)
R64: Pete Sampras def. Mikael Tillstrom (6-4, 6-4, 7-6)
R32: Pete Sampras def. Thomas Enqvist (6-3, 7-6, 7-6)
R16: Pete Sampras def. Sebastien Grosjean (6-3, 6-4, 6-4)
QF: Pete Sampras def. Mark Philippoussis (7-6, 6-4, 6-4)
SF: Pete Sampras def. Tim Henman (6-3, 4-6, 7-5, 6-3)
FR: Pete Sampras def. Goran Ivanisevic (6-7, 7-6, 6-4, 3-6, 6-2)

1999 Wimbledon
R128: Pete Sampras def. Scott Draper (6-3, 6-4, 6-4)
R64: Pete Sampras def. Sebastien Lareau (6-4, 6-2, 6-3)
R32: Pete Sampras def. Danny Sapsford (6-3, 6-4, 7-5)
R16: Pete Sampras def. Daniel Nestor (6-3, 6-4, 6-2)
QF: Pete Sampras def. Mark Philippoussis (4-6, 2-1 ret.)
SF: Pete Sampras def. Tim Henman (3-6, 6-4, 6-3, 6-4)
FR: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-3, 6-4, 7-5)

2000 Wimbledon
R128: Pete Sampras def. Jiri Vanek (6-4, 6-4, 6-2)
R64: Pete Sampras def. Karol Kucera (7-6, 3-6, 6-3, 6-4)
R32: Pete Sampras def. Justin Gimelstob (2-6, 6-4, 6-2, 6-2)
R16: Pete Sampras def. Jonas Bjorkman (6-3, 6-2, 7-5)
QF: Pete Sampras def. Jan-Michael Gambill (6-4, 6-7, 6-4, 6-4)
SF: Pete Sampras def. Vladimir Voltchkov (7-6, 6-2, 6-4)
FR: Pete Sampras def. Patrick Rafter (6-7, 7-6, 6-4, 6-2)

2001 Wimbledon
R128: Pete Sampras def. Francisco Clavet (6-4, 7-6, 6-4)
R64: Pete Sampras def. Barry Cowan (6-3, 6-2, 6-7, 4-6, 6-3)
R32: Pete Sampras def. Sargis Sargsian (6-4, 6-4, 7-5)
R16: Roger Federer def. Pete Sampras (7-6, 5-7, 6-4, 6-7, 7-5)

2002 Wimbledon
R128: Pete Sampras def. Martin Lee (6-3, 7-6, 6-3)
R64: George Bastl def. Pete Sampras (6-3, 6-2, 4-6, 3-6, 6-4)


Roger Federer
1999 Wimbledon
R128: Jiri Novak def. Roger Federer (6-3, 3-6, 4-6, 6-3, 6-4)

2000 Wimbledon
R128: Yevgeny Kafelnikov def. Roger Federer (7-5, 7-5, 7-6)

2001 Wimbledon
R128: Roger Federer def. Christophe Rochus (6-2, 6-3, 6-2)
R64: Roger Federer def. Xavier Malisse (6-3, 7-5, 3-6, 4-6, 6-3)
R32: Roger Federer def. Jonas Bjorkman (7-6, 6-3, 7-6)
R16: Roger Federer def. Pete Sampras (7-6, 5-7, 6-4, 6-7, 7-5)
QF: Tim Henman def. Roger Federer (7-5, 7-6, 2-6, 7-6)

2002 Wimbledon
R128: Mario Ancic def. Roger Federer (6-3, 7-6, 6-3)

2003 Wimbledon
R128: Roger Federer def. Hyung-Taik Lee (6-3, 6-3, 7-6)
R64: Roger Federer def. Stefan Koubek (7-5, 6-1, 6-1)
R32: Roger Federer def. Mardy Fish (6-3, 6-1, 4-6, 6-1)
R16: Roger Federer def. Feliciano Lopez (7-6, 6-4, 6-4)
QF: Roger Federer def. Sjeng Schalken (6-3, 6-4, 6-4)
SF: Roger Federer def. Andy Roddick (7-6, 6-3, 6-3)
FR: Roger Federer def. Mark Philippoussis (7-6, 6-2, 7-6)

2004 Wimbledon
R128: Roger Federer def. Alex Bogdanovic (6-3, 6-3, 6-0)
R64: Roger Federer def. Alejandro Falla (6-1, 6-2, 6-0)
R32: Roger Federer def. Thomas Johansson (6-3, 6-4, 6-3)
R16: Roger Federer def. Ivo Karlovic (6-3, 7-6, 7-6)
QF: Roger Federer def. Lleyton Hewitt (6-1, 6-7, 6-0, 6-4)
SF: Roger Federer def. Sebastien Grosjean (6-2, 6-3, 7-6)
FR: Roger Federer def. Andy Roddick (4-6, 7-5, 7-6, 6-4)

2005 Wimbledon
R128: Roger Federer def. Paul-Henri Mathieu (6-4, 6-2, 6-4)
R64: Roger Federer def. Ivo Minar (6-4, 6-4, 6-1)
R32: Roger Federer def. Nicolas Kiefer (6-2, 6-7, 6-1, 7-5)
R16: Roger Federer def. Juan Carlos Ferrero (6-3, 6-4, 7-6)
QF: Roger Federer def. Fernando Gonzalez (7-5, 6-2, 7-6)
SF: Roger Federer def. Lleyton Hewitt (6-3, 6-4, 7-6)
FR: Roger Federer def. Andy Roddick (6-2, 7-6, 6-4)

2006 Wimbledon
R128: Roger Federer def. Richard Gasquet (6-3, 6-2, 6-2)
R64: Roger Federer def. Tim Henman (6-4, 6-0, 6-2)
R32: Roger Federer def. Nicolas Mahut (6-3, 7-6, 6-4)
R16: Roger Federer def. Tomas Berdych (6-3, 6-3, 6-4)
QF: Roger Federer def. Mario Ancic (6-4, 6-4, 6-4)
SF: Roger Federer def. Jonas Bjorkman (6-2, 6-0, 6-2)
FR: Roger Federer def. Rafael Nadal (6-0, 7-6, 6-7, 6-3)

2007 Wimbledon
R128: Roger Federer def. Teymuraz Gabashvili (6-3, 6-2, 6-4)
R64: Roger Federer def. Juan Martin del Potro (6-2, 7-5, 6-1)
R32: Roger Federer def. Marat Safin (6-1, 6-4, 7-6)
R16: Roger Federer def. Tommy Haas (Walkover)
QF: Roger Federer def. Juan Carlos Ferrero (7-6, 3-6, 6-1, 6-3)
SF: Roger Federer def. Richard Gasquet (7-5, 6-3, 6-4)
FR: Roger Federer def. Rafael Nadal (7-6, 4-6, 7-6, 2-6, 6-2)

2008 Wimbledon
R128: Roger Federer def. Dominik Hrbaty (6-3, 6-2, 6-2)
R64: Roger Federer def. Robin Soderling (6-3, 6-4, 7-6)
R32: Roger Federer def. Marc Gicquel (6-3, 6-3, 6-1)
R16: Roger Federer def. Lleyton Hewitt (7-6, 6-2, 6-4)
QF: Roger Federer def. Mario Ancic (6-1, 7-5, 6-4)
SF: Roger Federer def. Marat Safin (6-3, 7-6, 6-4)
FR: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (6-4, 6-4, 6-7, 6-7, 9-7)

2009 Wimbledon
R128: Roger Federer def. Yen-Hsun Lu (7-5, 6-3, 6-2)
R64: Roger Federer def. Guillermo Garcia-Lopez (6-2, 6-2, 6-4)
R32: Roger Federer def. Philipp Kohlschreiber (6-3, 6-2, 6-7, 6-1)
R16: Roger Federer def. Robin Soderling (6-4, 7-6, 7-6)
QF: Roger Federer def. Ivo Karlovic (6-3, 7-5, 7-6)
SF: Roger Federer def. Tommy Haas (7-6, 7-5, 6-3)
FR: Roger Federer def. Andy Roddick (5-7, 7-6, 7-6, 3-6, 16-14)

2010 Wimbledon
R128: Roger Federer def. Alejandro Falla (5-7, 4-6, 6-4, 7-6, 6-0)
R64: Roger Federer def. Ilija Bozoljac (6-3, 6-7, 6-4, 7-6)
R32: Roger Federer def. Arnaud Clement (6-2, 6-4, 6-2)
R16: Roger Federer def. Jurgen Melzer (6-3, 6-2, 6-3)
QF: Tomas Berdych def. Roger Federer (6-4, 3-6, 6-1, 6-4)

2011 Wimbledon
R128: Roger Federer def. Mikhail Kukushkin (7-6, 6-4, 6-2)
R64: Roger Federer def. Adrian Mannarino (6-2, 6-3, 6-2)
R32: Roger Federer def. David Nalbandian (6-4, 6-2, 6-4)
R16: Roger Federer def. Mikhail Youzhny (6-7, 6-3, 6-3, 6-3)
QF: Jo-Wilfried Tsonga def. Roger Federer (3-6, 6-7, 6-4, 6-4, 6-4)

2012 Wimbledon
R128: Roger Federer def. Albert Ramos (6-1, 6-1, 6-1)
R64: Roger Federer def. Fabio Fognini (6-1, 6-3, 6-2)
R32: Roger Federer def. Julien Benneteau (4-6, 6-7, 6-2, 7-6, 6-1)
R16: Roger Federer def. Xavier Malisse (7-6, 6-1, 4-6, 6-3)
QF: Roger Federer def. Mikhail Youzhny (6-1, 6-2, 6-2)
SF: Roger Federer def. Novak Djokovic (6-3, 3-6, 6-4, 6-3)
FR: Roger Federer def. Andy Murray (4-6, 7-5, 6-3, 6-4)
 
tudwell said:
That's a fantastic argument since most of Federer's finalists aren't done with their careers. It's not inconceivable that, say, Andy Murray wins four slams.

And also, why four slams? Because it favors Pete? Why not five slams? That narrows it to 5-4 to Sampras. Or eleven slams? Then it's 2-0 to Federer.


Or if you use an actually useful benchmark and consider all their respective finalists who won at least one slam in their career, it's even at 10 all. And Murray will likely win a slam, giving Federer 13, and even if he doesn't, he's still better than Pioline, Martin, Ivanisevic, Chang, Moya, and probably even Rafter.

And as is perfunctory in these silly conversations about slam finalists, I will point out that it does, in fact, take seven matches to win a slam.
Click to expand...

Yeah exactly. Biased data.

BigServer1 said:
Nadal, Djokovic, Agassi, Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Murray...Yup, all duds, especially when compared to Chang, Moya, Goran, Rafter etc.

Fed has had three Major finals that seemed Dud-ish: Phillippoussis, Baghdatis and Gonzales. Gonzo was playing incredible tennis at the 2007 AO, but whatever, let's call him a dud.

By the same criteria, Sampras beat Todd Martin and Piolene (x2). I count 3 Major wins over "duds" for each.
Click to expand...

Even Scud beat Sampras in 2 slams, one in straights and one in a 5th set decider, showing he could blitz Pete and out nerve him in a ecider.
 
TheNatural said:
Fed faced weaker opposition in his 7 Wimbledon finals. Only 2 of his 7 final wins were against multiple slam champs (both v Nadal), 4 of the 7 Sampras finals that he won were against multiple slam champs(Courier, Becker, Agassi, rafter)
Click to expand...

Pete was never afraid of those guys. Two of the three, Jim and Andre, he had grown up whipping on during practice at Nick Boll's--not much doubt in your mind when the only thing standing between you and your next tournament title is your practice pigeon. Let's be frank. And Becker was arguably a better indoor player (wont WTF 4x) who could play very well on nearly any fast surface, but he was never quite on Pete's level on grass, and Becker defeating Kevin Curran or Lendl neither of whom ever won Wimbledon is not overly impressive.
 
TheNatural said:
Fed faced weaker opposition in his 7 Wimbledon finals. Only 2 of his 7 final wins were against multiple slam champs (both v Nadal), 4 of the 7 Sampras finals that he won were against multiple slam champs(Courier, Becker, Agassi, rafter)
Click to expand...

Murray's career is far from over. Roddick may have only ever won one slam, but he was far better on grass than Courier or Agassi, so that's a bit of a specious comparison.

I'd probably rank their finals opponents like this:

1. Nadal
2. Becker
3. Ivanisevic
4. Roddick
5. Rafter
6. Agassi
7. Murray
8. Courier
9. Philippousis
10. Pioline
 
The reason why Federer's opposition didn't have that many Slams is that Federer was winning all of them! Would he be a better player if he lost 2 Slam finals to Roddick, thus having "higher quality" wins in the remaining victories over Roddick?!
 
Meanwhile Roger gets a PUSHER for an opponent in the finals who has no ability to play aggressive or even attack the net on an indoor faster grass court. A guy who doesn't even have a GOOD 2nd serve.

Actually Roger got two ball retriever pushers in a row with limited attacking ability on an indoor court.


Meanwhile Pete had to play Rafter. A great attacker on a fast surface in the finals. Not to mention he was injured during that match.


Both had it easy more or less for draws at wimbledon.. Pete had a cakewalk to the finals really... But Fed's wasn't much better if at all for his route to the semis. And also consider the fact Djokovic and Murray are average at best playing indoor tennis under faster conditions, Fed's draw wasn't anything to writer home about.



Fed beat no one this year, that Pete wouldn't have literally used and abused
 
Last edited:
JennyS said:
The reason why Federer's opposition didn't have that many Slams is that Federer was winning all of them! Would he be a better player if he lost 2 Slam finals to Roddick, thus having "higher quality" wins in the remaining victories over Roddick?!
Click to expand...

Hi JennyS -- long time. we miss your stats that we could use to shut the petetards :)
 
tudwell said:
Murray's career is far from over. Roddick may have only ever won one slam, but he was far better on grass than Courier or Agassi, so that's a bit of a specious comparison.

I'd probably rank their finals opponents like this:

1. Nadal
2. Becker
3. Ivanisevic
4. Roddick
5. Rafter
6. Agassi
7. Murray
8. Courier
9. Philippousis
10. Pioline
Click to expand...

Where's Djokovic?
 
McEnroeisanartist said:
In winning his 7th Wimbledon, the average ranking of Federer's opponent was 37. He never played a player ranked outside the top 75.

In winning his 7th Wimbledon, the average ranking of Sampras' opponent was 88, he played 4 opponents ranked outside the top 75.

In addition, In winning his 7th French Open, the average of Nadal's opponent was 54, he played 2 opponents ranked outside the top 100.
Click to expand...

Nadal usually gets clown draws and Sampras played in weak area.
 
TheNatural said:
Fed faced weaker opposition in his 7 Wimbledon finals. Only 2 of his 7 final wins were against multiple slam champs (both v Nadal), 4 of the 7 Sampras finals that he won were against multiple slam champs(Courier, Becker, Agassi, rafter)
Click to expand...

How many number 1 ranked defending Wimbledon champions did Sampras beat at Wimbledon?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Federer Winning 7th Wimbledon Bigger News Than Nadal Winning 7th French Open
Replies
21
Views
2K
Bruce39
B
M
Comparing Federer, Nadal, and Sampras - Grand Slam Losses in Prime
Replies
14
Views
1K
mud volcano
M
M
Comparing Grand Slam Winning Percentage of Big 3
2
Replies
74
Views
9K
kandamrgam
kandamrgam
M
Federer's losses in Grand Slams post-prime compared to Samrpas/Nadal
Replies
7
Views
866
spinovic
S
Pheasant
Casper the friendly ghost is performing a disappearing act.
Replies
36
Views
1K
mike danny
mike danny
Back
Top