Greater Wimbledon Champion - Fed vs Sampras?

Z

Zain786

Semi-Pro
Both have 7 titles which is an open era record. How do both match up stats wise and can Fed overtake number 7 and have the all time record of 8 Wimbledon Championships.

Sampras at Wimbledon -

1) 7 Titles
2) 7 - 0 in Finals (100% record)
3) Match W/L - 63/7
4) 90% match record
5) 7 out of 14 attempts

Fed at Wimbledon -

1) 7 Titles
2) 7 - 2 in Finals (78% record)
3) Match W/L - 73/9
4) 89% match record
5) 7 out of 16 attempts

H2H (1 - 1)
 
Zain786 said:
Both have 7 titles which is an open era record. How do both match up stats wise and can Fed overtake number 7 and have the all time record of 8 Wimbledon Championships.

Sampras at Wimbledon -

1) 7 Titles
2) 7 - 0 in Finals (100% record)
3) Match W/L - 63/7
4) 90% match record
5) 7 out of 14 attempts

Fed at Wimbledon -

1) 7 Titles
2) 7 - 2 in Finals (78% record)
3) Match W/L - 73/9
4) 89% match record
5) 7 out of 16 attempts

H2H (1 - 1)
Click to expand...

First of all, the H2H is wrong being 1-0 Federer. Second of all, most of us knows the answer and it's pretty obvious that Fed is the better Grass player. Third of all, why do you make soo many useless threads?
 
Zain786 said:
H2H (1 - 1)
Click to expand...

1-1? When did Sampras beat Fed at Wimbledon?

Gotta say Fed has a better record, because he's reached two additional finals.

At age 33 Federer was playing in the final. At the same age, Sampras was watching Fed win Wimbledon on TV.
 
Last edited:
jm1980 said:
1-1? When did Sampras beat Fed at Wimbledon?

Gotta say Fed has a better record, because he's reached two additional finals.

At age 33 Federer was playing in the final. At the same age, Sampras was watching Fed win Wimbledon on TV.
Click to expand...

lol, that's funny because it's true.

I'd say they are pretty even in terms of level at Wimbledon though. I normally hate the weak era type arguments, but I sort of feel there were more grass-/fast-court-specialists in Sampras' heyday. The grass was also arguably more differentiated from the other surfaces at the time. Although I'm sure Fed would love those courts too, probably more than the contemporary ones.
 
Firstly, win % doesn't matter.
It always irks me when this is mentioned, as it is very dependant on whether you played pre-prime, post-prime or not.

Federer leads in every other category, but not many of those matter either.

What matters is that Federer has equal titles, but also has additional finals, and also five consecutive titles.

Federer wins.

Also OP is using finals appearances against Federer.
No.

Making the final is a worthy achievement in itself, and is certainly better than losing to Krajicek in early rounds.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sysyphus said:
lol, that's funny because it's true.

I'd say they are pretty even in terms of level at Wimbledon though. I normally hate the weak era type arguments, but I sort of feel there were more grass-/fast-court-specialists in Sampras' heyday. The grass was also arguably more differentiated from the other surfaces at the time. Although I'm sure Fed would love those courts too, probably more than the contemporary ones.
Click to expand...
Well IMO grass court competition is relative. Sampras's grass court competitors were as tough as the conditions allowed them to be. The same could be said for Federer's grass court competitors.

For example guys like Ivanisevic and Rafter would struggle most of the time against a guy like Hewitt on slower grass.
 
Here are all of their Wimbledon matches and scores:

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)

2013 Wimbledon
R128: Roger Federer def. Victor Hanescu (6-3, 6-2, 6-0)
R64: Sergiy Stakhovsky def. Roger Federer (6-7, 7-6, 7-5, 7-6)

2014 Wimbledon
R128: Roger Federer def. Paolo Lorenzi (6-1, 6-1, 6-3)
R64: Roger Federer def. Gilles Muller (6-3, 7-5, 6-3)
R32: Roger Federer def. Santiago Giraldo (6-3, 6-1, 6-3)
R16: Roger Federer def. Tommy Robredo (6-1, 6-4, 6-4)
QF: Roger Federer def. Stanislas Wawrinka (3-6, 7-6, 6-4, 6-4)
SF: Roger Federer def. Milos Raonic (6-4, 6-4, 6-4)
FR: Novak Djokovic def. Roger Federer (6-7, 6-4, 7-6, 5-7, 6-4)
 
Soul_Evisceration said:
First of all, the H2H is wrong being 1-0 Federer. Second of all, most of us knows the answer and it's pretty obvious that Fed is the better Grass player. Third of all, why do you make soo many useless threads?
Click to expand...

OP has made several of these threads, always unfair by mentioning win % and then also not mentioning consecutive titles.
I feel that OP is a Fed hater.
 
This has been debated over and over again.

The win loss percentage in finals doesn't matter. Sampras was just fortunate to lose to Krajicek before the final instead of the decisive match. If Federer met Nadal and Djokovic before the title matches he would also have a perfect finals record.

Sampras also didn't play well enough at W deep into his 30's to have a chance to lose more finals. And he would have lost more finals: to Hewitt and Federer in particular. Federer just gets punished for being good enough to still reach W finals deep into his 30's.

Federer has 2 extra finals,5 straight titles and 7 straight finals. This trumps 80% of the things Sampras managed.
 
mike danny said:
Well IMO grass court competition is relative. Sampras's grass court competitors were as tough as the conditions allowed them to be. The same could be said for Federer's grass court competitors.

For example guys like Ivanisevic and Rafter would struggle most of the time against a guy like Hewitt on slower grass.
Click to expand...

Yeah, now that I consider it, I think you are right on that one. And comparing eras is impossible anyways.
 
Put a poll OP?
Would give slight edge to Fed, more Finals and a longer span at the top.
Winning percentage is skewed as others have said, by Sampras retiring earlier. (just like Borg etc).
 
Zain786 said:
Both have 7 titles which is an open era record. How do both match up stats wise and can Fed overtake number 7 and have the all time record of 8 Wimbledon Championships.

Sampras at Wimbledon -

1) 7 Titles
2) 7 - 0 in Finals (100% record)
3) Match W/L - 63/7
4) 90% match record
5) 7 out of 14 attempts

Fed at Wimbledon -

1) 7 Titles
2) 7 - 2 in Finals (78% record)
3) Match W/L - 73/9
4) 89% match record
5) 7 out of 16 attempts

H2H (1 - 1)
Click to expand...

I don't believe Roger singularly holds the record at any Grand slam for number of titles, does he?

I mean, for all you "GOAT" folks, shouldn't you be able to at stand atop the mountain ALONE in at least ONE grand slam event? Or is the insane consistency enough for the "GOAT" to graze grass with other greats?

Just asking. Not judging. What Roger did at Wimbledon is great, but is it the greatest?


#PTL #JC4Ever

AngieB
​
 
DerekNoleFam1 said:
Put a poll OP?
Would give slight edge to Fed, more Finals and a longer span at the top.
Winning percentage is skewed as others have said, by Sampras retiring earlier. (just like Borg etc).
Click to expand...
And just having the fortune (if you could call it that way) to meet Krajicek in 1996 before the final.
 
AngieB said:
I don't believe Roger singularly holds the record at any Grand slam for number of titles, does he?

I mean, for all you "GOAT" folks, shouldn't you be able to at stand atop the mountain ALONE in at least ONE grand slam event? Or is the insane consistency enough for the "GOAT" to graze grass with other greats?

Just asking. Not judging. What Roger did at Wimbledon is great, but is it the greatest?


#PTL #JC4Ever

AngieB
​
Click to expand...
Who else has 9 W finals in the Open Era? I say this answers your question
 
I would say Federer, since they both have same number of titles, but Fed has 5 consecutive titles vs only 4 for Sampras, and that is the tiebreaker that should be used here.
 
mike danny said:
Who else has 9 W finals in the Open Era? I say this answers your question
Click to expand...

So he's the greatest because he was 2nd-best on more occasions? What is great about being 2nd best?

But we ignore Roger's 3 first round losses because he was pre-prime right? But at the same time, his pre-prime win against Sampras counts, right? It's just cherry-picking. Win-loss doesn't matter because of pre-prime and post-prime? Nonsense. It all counts.
 
drm025 said:
So he's the greatest because he was 2nd-best on more occasions? What is great about being 2nd best?

But we ignore Roger's 3 first round losses because he was pre-prime right? But at the same time, his pre-prime win against Sampras counts, right? It's just cherry-picking. Win-loss doesn't matter because of pre-prime and post-prime? Nonsense. It all counts.
Click to expand...
I didn't mention anything about post prime or pre prime. Stop putting words into my mouth.
 
AngieB said:
So we have to go #Minor #Lane again? You know how that thrills me.


#PTL #JC4Ever

AngieB​
Click to expand...

I like your logic. The other slams are not as prestigious as Wimbledon. Therefore only Freddy and Petros are goat-worthy in the open era. That is, if we're majoring in majors! :)
 
Sysyphus said:
I like your logic. The other slams are not as prestigious as Wimbledon. Therefore only Freddy and Petros are goat-worthy in the open era. That is, if we're majoring in majors! :)
Click to expand...

I'm majoring in pseudoscience.
 
Very, very close but I also would give the edge to Federer. He has more finals than Sampras, 9-7 and 5 consecutive victories to Sampras's 4 which puts him on a par with Borg for most consecutive titles won in the open era.
 
Mainad said:
Very, very close but I also would give the edge to Federer. He has more finals than Sampras, 9-7 and 5 consecutive victories to Sampras's 4 which puts him on a par with Borg for most consecutive titles won in the open era.
Click to expand...

+1...........
 
An answer from a guy who has no streak fetish and final obsession

It all comes down to titles + prime win % + competition.

1. Titles = 7 each. Tie

2. Prime win % - depends on what is prime. For 8 year period Pete wins. For 10 year period Roger wins. I will go with former.

3. Competition - no words, I don't know.

My pick for Wimbledon is Pete. Overall grass should go to Roger considering he has Rafa on clay like dominance on surface for about 5 years. Pete did lesser outside WC.
 
Last edited:
Longevity = Federer
Absolute Peak = Sampras

Even though the statics slighty favor Fed... 1-0 in h2h and two more finals..
I would still pick sampras at wimbledon over fed any day of the week.
 
Sysyphus said:
I like your logic. The other slams are not as prestigious as Wimbledon. Therefore only Freddy and Petros are goat-worthy in the open era. That is, if we're majoring in majors! :)
Click to expand...

Well they might be prestigious for those who fit their game... all slam equal the same.. I think even Australia is nowadays just as worthy... maybe not 30 years ago though..
 
Tennisknowledge99 said:
Federer, he's more consistent. There 2001 Wimby match was an exchange of dominance
Click to expand...

That win by Federer was the changing of the guard. Sampras fans like to sweep that match under the rug since their excuse is Sampras wasn't in his prime, lol. The fact is Federer was only 19 who was facing against a defending champion who was going for his 5th straight Wimbledon title.

It's not like one is at his peak and one is past his prime. Sampras was still closer to his prime and had the experience to his advantage while Federer was still a rookie.

It was a great win and definitely be factor in a tie-breaker.
 
The_Mental_Giant said:
Well Lendl has 8 STRAIGHT us open finals and 9 STRAIGHT Wtf finals, I dont see anybody claiming him to be the goat in either of them..
Click to expand...

Because he never won 5 USO and 6 WTF. Had he won those number of titles, the extra final(s) is one if not the most important stat in a tie-breaker.
 
TMF said:
That win by Federer was the changing of the guard. Sampras fans like to sweep that match under the rug since their excuse is Sampras wasn't in his prime, lol. The fact is Federer was only 19 who was facing against a defending champion who was going for his 5th straight Wimbledon title.

It's not like one is at his peak and one is past his prime. Sampras was still closer to his prime and had the experience to his advantage while Federer was still a rookie.

It was a great win and definitely be factor in a tie-breaker.
Click to expand...

I do agree that Sampras wasn't in his prime, but not really far from his best while Federer was still finding his game. That was a great match from both legends, exchanged the dominance, if they competed at their peak, it would be the greatest Wimby final for me
 
Tennisknowledge99 said:
I do agree that Sampras wasn't in his prime, but not really far from his best while Federer was still finding his game. That was a great match from both legends, exchanged the dominance, if they competed at their peak, it would be the greatest Wimby final for me
Click to expand...

But you are ignoring something... Sampras had already 7 Wimbledons in the bag.. he had the absolute record..so he was mentally simply not there.. not that he didnt want to win but he for sure lacked hunger.. specially about winning at wimbledon... Federer on the other hand was young, but enough skilled already.. maybe he didnt control his game unlike he did since 2003 but he had big weapons and he was very huntgry of titles... so the mental plain favors Fed...

Its like if someone beat Nadal in RG 2015 QF and they claim that player is a bad matchup and could beat nadal anytime... but they dont realize its hard to be focused on winning a tournmant after you did it so many times already...
 
The_Mental_Giant said:
But you are ignoring something... Sampras had already 7 Wimbledons in the bag.. he had the absolute record..so he was mentally simply not there.. not that he didnt want to win but he for sure lacked hunger.. specially about winning at wimbledon... Federer on the other hand was young, but enough skilled already.. maybe he didnt control his game unlike he did since 2003 but he had big weapons and he was very huntgry of titles... so the mental plain favors Fed...

Its like if someone beat Nadal in RG 2015 QF and they claim that player is a bad matchup and could beat nadal anytime... but they dont realize its hard to be focused on winning a tournmant after you did it so many times already...
Click to expand...

Nope, Sampras played good match, of course not his best forrm but he's not lacked hunger and motivation, he's looking to tie Bjorn Borg's record for consecutive Wimby title, also his last Slam was in 2002. The mental clearly favored Sampras more, he's more comfortable there. Fed at that time, a young boy faced the Wimby legend Sampras, and you said mental plain favors Fed and Fed had enough skilled?

Federer DIDN'T have enough skills at that time, he's still finding and setting up his game, after that tournament, Fed didn't make any significant impacts until 2002 when he made his first Master 1000 final
 
Sysyphus said:
I like your logic. The other slams are not as prestigious as Wimbledon. Therefore only Freddy and Petros are goat-worthy in the open era. That is, if we're majoring in majors! :)
Click to expand...
Syssy, you appear confused. This thread is comparing Roger Federer vs Pete Sampras as the greater Wimbledon Champion. Not the greatest. There is another gentleman named William who won Wimbledon equally within tennis history, but he's not being discussed.

We are not discussing any other players or grand slam tournaments or even pre or post Open Era.

I will say that historically, Wimbledon is The Championship. There is/has and always will be a certain prestige and history that Wimbledon has that none of the other grand slam events can compare to. That's not to say that the other grand slams are less than, rather, Wimbledon will always hold a certain fondness in the hearts of tennis fans as the ORIGINAL grand slam event that kick-started the sport. Praise be and hallelujah! #major in #majors


#PTL #JC4Ever

AngieB​
 
Pete. . More condensed period of domination (Though Fed has more finals) Pete won 7 Wimbledon titles in 8 years, it took Fed like 9-10 years. Also, the fact Pete was UNDEFEATED in Finals. Fed has lost a couple of finals including to a strict baseline non attacking player on grass in his prime (No way would that ever happen to Pete in a wimbledon Finals.

Pete probably had a better grass field to contend with as well.

Becker/Goran>>>>> Any grass player Ive seen bar Fed for the past 15 years


Peak wise, on their A game, Pete was a far deadlier player than Fed as well IMO.

'99 Wimbleldon final Sampras destroys ANY Fed on grass
 
90's Clay said:
Pete. . More condensed period of domination (Though Fed has more finals) Pete won 7 Wimbledon titles in 8 years, it took Fed like 9-10 years. Also, the fact Pete was UNDEFEATED in Finals. Fed has lost a couple of finals including to a strict baseline non attacking player on grass in his prime (No way would that ever happen to Pete in a wimbledon Finals.

Pete probably had a better grass field to contend with as well.

Becker/Goran>>>>> Any grass player Ive seen bar Fed for the past 15 years


Peak wise, on their A game, Pete was a far deadlier player than Fed as well IMO.

'99 Wimbleldon final Sampras destroys ANY Fed on grass
Click to expand...

Aren't you contradicting yourself a little here? On the one hand you're acknowledging that Fed reached two more finals than Pete, but on the other hand you're implying that it was a bad thing to do so(seeing as he didn't win them) and that he should have lost in an earlier round? :?
 
Djokovic2011 said:
Aren't you contradicting yourself a little here? On the one hand you're acknowledging that Fed reached two more finals than Pete, but on the other hand you're implying that it was a bad thing to do so(seeing as he didn't win them) and that he should have lost in an earlier round? :?
Click to expand...

I have no problem with someone picking Fed over Pete due to the more Wimbledon finals appearances, but by that some token, that would make Pete the greater USO player since he has more finals appearances than Fed as well.

This is just opinion and you can go with either player at both slams. Obviously they are so close on both surfaces that that is no clear cut favorite.

I think Pete was the greater champion as I feel his peak level of play was better than Fed's. (Not by a HUGE amount) and his game was more geared toward medium/faster conditions than Fed's is/was and Pete's competition IMO at both Flushing/Wimbledon was a bit better than Fed's IMO
 
Last edited:
AngieB said:
I don't believe Roger singularly holds the record at any Grand slam for number of titles, does he?

I mean, for all you "GOAT" folks, shouldn't you be able to at stand atop the mountain ALONE in at least ONE grand slam event? Or is the insane consistency enough for the "GOAT" to graze grass with other greats?

Just asking. Not judging. What Roger did at Wimbledon is great, but is it the greatest?


#PTL #JC4Ever

AngieB
​
Click to expand...

He doesn't have any of the outright records, but he shares the record at 3/4 of the slams, and importantly, he shares the record with different people at the different slams, so overall he has done the best.
 
Bobby Jr said:
This is the correct answer here. It seals the deal for Federer.
Click to expand...

I am a Federer fan and comments like this one are hilarious to me. It does not "seal the deal" for Federer. The reality is that both Sampras and Federer have 7 Wimbledon titles. Federer has a slight edge when you are trying to figure out who was the better Wimbledon player because of his extra couple of finals and the fact that he won five consecutive titles as compared to Sampras' four consecutive titles. But the reality is that you are basically comparing dog scraps between them.

Posters who say one player is definitively the better Wimbledon player over the other is just fanboy claptrap. They are tied with 7 titles. The end.
 
I have always thought Fed was the slightly greater W champ after his victory in 2012. And then getting to the final in 2014, was another small step further ahead from Sampras.
 
cc0509 said:
I am a Federer fan and comments like this one are hilarious to me. It does not "seal the deal" for Federer. The reality is that both Sampras and Federer have 7 Wimbledon titles. Federer has a slight edge when you are trying to figure out who was the better Wimbledon player because of his extra couple of finals and the fact that he won five consecutive titles as compared to Sampras' four consecutive titles. But the reality is that you are basically comparing dog scraps between them.

Posters who say one player is definitively the better Wimbledon player over the other is just fanboy claptrap. They are tied with 7 titles. The end.
Click to expand...

Do extra finals not matter to you if both players have the same amount of titles cc0? Even if one player had a fair few more finals, let's say for instance one guy is 7-5 and the other is 7-0 in finals? Got a feeling I know what your answer will be babe :wink:
 
2 runner-ups is more than a slight edge. that result alone is more than 99% of tennis pros will ever achieve. not quite hof criteria but enough to make a player a reference point for years to come. federer has a clear advantage in this particular debate. 5 in a row is also a significant stat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

6-1 6-3 6-0
  • Poll Poll
Which period was most similar to Nadal's RG dominance: Sampras or Federer@Wimbledon?
2 3
Replies
107
Views
11K
Neptune
Neptune
Z
  • Poll Poll
Who was more dominant? Rafa at French Open or Sampras at Wimbledon?
Replies
32
Views
2K
RS
RS
JennyS
Federer vs Sampras and Borg in Grand Slams
Replies
42
Views
3K
tudwell
T
Winner Sinner
  • Poll Poll
[POLL) Sinner 2024 vs Djokovic 2023
2
Replies
51
Views
1K
Winner Sinner
Winner Sinner
Walenty
  • Poll Poll
Time to ask again: Who's the best up-and-comer on tour?
Replies
26
Views
2K
Tshooter
Tshooter
Back
Top