Greater Wimbledon Champion - Fed vs Sampras?

[Deleted member 688153]

I think Federer and Djokovic at the AO is closer than Federer and Sampras at Wimbledon.

At Wimbledon, Federer has two extra finals over Sampras, and also has the consecutive titles record (shared with Borg) at five.

At the AO, Federer has one extra final over Djokovic, but Novak has the consecutive titles record (dammit Safin) at three.

I still put Federer ahead though at the AO, because he has many more match wins, 11 consecutive SF or better performances (which is insane), and has also won the AO on two different surfaces, being the only man to do so.

Between Federer and Sampras at the USO, I also put Federer ahead, although this is close.
Sampras has three extra finals, but only managed two consecutive titles (only defended once), while Federer has the outright record of five consecutive titles, one of the greatest GS title streaks in history.
Federer also has more total match wins, and will only increase his lead in this category.

I think that titles >>> consecutive titles > finals.

At the USO, I would say that Federer > Connors > Sampras, as Connors also had two consecutive titles, but won the USO on three different surfaces.

Federer is the GOAT of AO, Wimbledon, and USO.
If not for Nadal, he would be the GOAT at RG too, with 6 titles (05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 11) and the consecutive titles record (5). :twisted:

Djokovic may overtake Federer at the AO, though.

 

[cc0509]

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:

Where in my post did I say that extra finals do not matter? I said it gives Federer the slight edge at Wimbledon along with the fact that Federer won five consecutive compared to Sampras' four consecutive. You also have their ONE meeting at Wimbledon which Federer won. But some posters make it seem like Federer is David and Sampras is Goliath. We are talking about doggie scraps and what most of these posts do is show a poster's favoritism towards a certain player, that is all. The thing which matters most is that they both have seven titles. If Federer can win one more title then he will be the Wimbledon King not until then.

 

[Steve0904]

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.

I agree with this. Federer has an edge, but it is not a huge one. If they played each other at Wimbledon enough times they may split matches.

 

[The Green Mile]

@FirstServingMan - Connors, for me, is greater at the USO then both Fed and Sampras. His record there is ridiculous. Had a lot of finals and semi finals there, as well as 5 titles on the differwnt surfaces as you said.

 

[cc0509]

I agree with this. Federer has an edge, but it is not a huge one. If they played each other at Wimbledon enough times they may split matches.

That is what I think what have probably happened between them. They were both so good at Wimbledon.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Where in my post did I say that extra finals do not matter? I said it gives Federer the slight edge at Wimbledon along with the fact that Federer won five consecutive compared to Sampras' four consecutive. You also have their ONE meeting at Wimbledon which Federer won. But some posters make it seem like Federer is David and Sampras is Goliath. We are talking about doggie scraps and what most of these posts do is show a poster's favoritism towards a certain player, that is all. The thing which matters most is that they both have seven titles. If Federer can win one more title then he will be the Wimbledon King not until then.

I think I get what you're saying. Federer has the greater record there but in terms of who's the greater champion, they're equal.

 

[Djokovic2011]

@FirstServingMan - Connors, for me, is greater at the USO then both Fed and Sampras. His record there is ridiculous. Had a lot of finals and semi finals there, as well as 5 titles on the differwnt surfaces as you said.

Didn't you get the memo that finals and semi-finals don't matter? You've got to major in majors like AngieB and cc0! :twisted:

 

[cc0509]

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.

Yes, that is another small thing which gives Federer the slight edge at Wimbledon but I think for Federer to be seen as the reigning W King, he has to win one more. THAT would seal the argument for eternity.

 

[cc0509]

I think I get what you're saying. Federer has the greater record there but in terms of who's the greater champion, they're equal.

What I am saying is that Federer has a slight edge at W but he still shares the W record with Sampras! He is not the outright W King yet. I think he may be able to win one more though.

 

[90's Clay]

Guess Sampras is the greater USO Champ then since he has like 2 more USO finals than Fed?

I don't care about all this "runner up" crap anyways. The reality is both have 7 Wimbledon crowns and are Co GOATS at Wimbledon. 'nuff said.

Whether you lose in the final or lose in the QF, EITHER WAY you don't win the tournament. At the end of the day they have 7 Wimbledon titles to their name. No one (except the hardcore historians) are gonna know or care who has more finals appearances then who. You either win the tourney or you don't

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Federer vs Sampras at Wimbledon is not particularly close, because Federer hold both the consecutive titles and the finals record over Sampras (the other two important criteria).

It is closer for Federer at the HC slams, because he splits these other two criteria between Djokovic and Sampras and does not hold both like he does at Wimbledon.

Also Connors' 3-different-surface USO wins + 5 titles + same number of consec. titles as Sampras + only one less final puts him above Sampras at the USO for me.

 

[Djokovic2011]

What I am saying is that Federer has a slight edge at W but he still shares the W record with Sampras! He is not the outright W King yet. I think he may be able to win one more though.

That slight edge means he has the better record.

 

[MTF07]

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

99 Wimbledon Agassi was still competitive with Sampras. LOL @ thinking Federer EVER gets destroyed on grass.

More condensed period of dominance? That's a farcical argument, considering Federer won 5 straight Wimbledons (Pete never did this), won 6 titles from 7 straight finals (again Pete never did this). Two additional finals is better than losing before the finals, no matter what way you try to spin losing earlier as a positive.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

@FirstServingMan - Connors, for me, is greater at the USO then both Fed and Sampras. His record there is ridiculous. Had a lot of finals and semi finals there, as well as 5 titles on the differwnt surfaces as you said.

You may be right.

All I know is that both Federer and Connors are above Sampras for me at the USO.

Fed's 5 consec. titles there is insane, I think the next best is two or three.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Guess Sampras is the greater USO Champ then since he has like 2 more USO finals than Fed?

I don't care about all this "runner up" crap anyways. The reality is both have 7 Wimbledon crowns and are Co GOATS at Wimbledon. 'nuff said.

Whether you lose in the final or lose in the QF, EITHER WAY you don't win the tournament

That's an awfully simplistic way to look at things. :???:

 

[The Green Mile]

Didn't you get the memo that finals and semi-finals don't matter? You've got to major in majors like AngieB and cc0! :twisted:

Hahaha, who hasn't? AngieB's nearly poetic posts are interesting to say the least! #this and #that!

It just shows a form of consistency, which I hold in high regard.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Guess Sampras is the greater USO Champ then since he has like 2 more USO finals than Fed?

I don't care about all this "runner up" crap anyways. The reality is both have 7 Wimbledon crowns and are Co GOATS at Wimbledon. 'nuff said.

Whether you lose in the final or lose in the QF, EITHER WAY you don't win the tournament. At the end of the day they have 7 Wimbledon titles to their name. No one (except the hardcore historians) are gonna know or care who has more finals appearances then who. You either win the tourney or you don't

Okay, forget the runner-ups.

Federer has 5 consec. W titles. Sampras doesn't.

Federer has 5 consec. USO titles. Sampras doesn't.

Fed is better at both, even when only looking at titles.

 

[90's Clay]

Okay, forget the runner-ups.

Federer has 5 consec. W titles. Sampras doesn't.

Federer has 5 consec. USO titles. Sampras doesn't.

Fed is better at both, even when only looking at titles.

Whats goofy to me if Fed fanatics will put Fed over Pete (due to More Finals appearances) yet don't put Pete Over Fed at the Flushing (yet Pete has more finals there).

Wheres the logic in that?? :shock::shock:


7=7
5=5

Last I checked. Thats all the history books will say. Why are we giving out awards for LOSING their tournament either way??

 

[Deleted member 688153]

That's an awfully simplistic way to look at things. :???:

Do you think Djokovic will become the AO GOAT, Djokovic2011?

I think he will, but the only way he can is to win another title to automatically put himself ahead.

 

[cc0509]

That's an awfully simplistic way to look at things. :???:

Yes, but 90sClay is right to a certain extent IMO. It is a crude way to look at it, that is all. But when you hear commentators speak about who holds the W record, they talk about how Sampras and Federer are tied and that is the bottom line really. They don't ramble on about additional finals, etc. That is a discussion for fanboys to wax on about.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Do you think Djokovic will become the AO GOAT, Djokovic2011?

I think he will, but the only way he can is to win another title to automatically put himself ahead.

I hope so mate - the final will be on my birthday!

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Whats goofy to me if Fed fanatics will put Fed over Pete (due to More Finals appearances) yet don't put Pete Over Fed at the Flushing (yet Pete has more finals there).

Wheres the logic in that?? :shock::shock:


7=7
5=5

Last I checked. Thats all the history books will say. Why are we giving out awards for LOSING their tournament either way??

I put Fed over Pete because of 5 consec. titles.
The extra W finals are just a small bonus.

Pete has finals over Roger at the USO, but as you said, being the RU isn't much of an achievement, so again, Federer's 5 consec USO titles put him over Pete.

Consecutive title record is worth much more than extra finals IMO, but that doesn't mean finals are worth nothing.

Also winning on multiple surfaces is awesome, which plus the extra final, and 11 consec. SFs, is why Federer is still the AO GOAT.

 

[90's Clay]

I put Fed over Pete because of 5 consec. titles.
The extra W finals are just a small bonus.

Pete has finals over Roger at the USO, but as you said, being the RU isn't much of an achievement, so again, Federer's 5 consec USO titles put him over Pete.

Consecutive title record is worth much more than extra finals IMO, but that doesn't mean finals are worth nothing.

Picky and Choose to favor Fed huh? Pete also won 7 wimbledon titles in 8 years. Took Fed like what 10 years to win 7?

I could easily argue thats more impressive (winning 7 titles in 8 years) as opposed to some "consecutive streak"

 

[MTF07]

Federer won 6 titles in 7 years and was only stopped from winning 7 in a row by one of the best players in tennis history (better than any player Pete faced).

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Yes, but 90sClay is right to a certain extent IMO. It is a crude way to look at it, that is all. But when you hear commentators speak about who holds the W record, they talk about how Sampras and Federer are tied and that is the bottom line really. They don't ramble on about additional finals, etc. That is a discussion for fanboys to wax on about.

How much extra finals matter is debatable (but it is a non-zero value).

However, consecutive titles do matter.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Also winning on multiple surfaces is awesome, which plus the extra final, and 11 consec. SFs, is why Federer is still the AO GOAT.

In fairness mate, Novak never really had the opportunity to win the AO on Rebound Ace since it was before he hit his prime so it seems a little unfair to hold that against him.

 

[Strobe Lights]

Fed's two extra finals puts him ahead of Sampras at Wimbledon. Likewise, Pete's two extra finals put him ahead of Fed at Flushing Meadows. Otherwise it implies that a runner up is not just the same as a semi, a quarter or a first round, but the same as not even playing the tournament. A final is a tremendous achievement and should be considered as such.

That Delpo loss in 2009 will always be looked back on as such a missed opportunity. He should have won it, before getting too cute at the end of the second set and then getting all stubborn and trying to ball bash rather than using his variety that always worked so well against JMDP. Would have given him 6 titles, 6 consecutive and he would have been on for the NCYGS at AO 2010 (which he went on to win).

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
​

The consistency of holding the joint record at 3 of the 4 is superior to the stand alone record at 1 of the 4.

For example, Fed's 4-1-7-5 is blatantly more impressive than Rafa's 1-9-2-2. Add in that Fed only has the 1 RG due to the guy with the obscene 9 titles. Or by expanding to include his record YEC titles (5th biggest title): 4-1-7-5-6 compared to Rafa's 1-9-2-2-0. So people trying to place Rafa ahead of Fed at the moment just because he holds an insane RG record seems bizarre to me.

 

[90's Clay]

Until or IF Fed wins an 8th title they are probably tied as co-GOATS.

But Like I said if I had to pick one, I would pick Pete as I feel his game was always more tailor made for grass than Fed's was and I feel the field is he competed against on grass was a bit tougher than Fed's thus making Pete's 7 wimbledon titles a bit more impressive. When you factor in he had to play one of the all time great wimbledon champs Becker, and Goran at the peak of his powers (One of the deadliest grass court players of the last 30-40 years)

 

[90's Clay]

Federer won 6 titles in 7 years and was only stopped from winning 7 in a row by one of the best players in tennis history (better than any player Pete faced).

:shock::shock:


Yea Nadal is all time GOAT on grass. ROFLMAO!!!


Fed should WHIPE the floor with Nadal on grass as he is the bigger hitter, aggressor, bigger server. Nadal shouldn't be beating Fed in Wimbledon finals with a spinfest, standing 2 miles behind the baseline game.

Grass shouldn't favor that type of player over the aggressor

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Picky and Choose to favor Fed huh? Pete also won 7 wimbledon titles in 8 years. Took Fed like what 10 years to win 7?

I could easily argue thats more impressive (winning 7 titles in 8 years) as opposed to some "consecutive streak"

But it isn't, because the streak was broken.
Federer would have had 7 titles in 7 years (7 consecutive), if not for Nadal (aka the second-best player ever). His one loss was in the final, 9-7 in the fifth.

Sampras' streak was broken by Krajicek in the 4R.
Wow.

Only the consecutive streak matters in this context.

The one type of case where I would argue that it doesn't matter as much is for Fed's 18 of 19 GS finals.
Both halves of that streak (10 and 8 ) are records, he holds the 1st and 2nd spot.
That was something special, and considering he is only competing against himself there, combining them is fair enough.

Sampras' 7 of 8 W titles was comprised of streaks of 4 and 3.
Neither are records (the record is five).

 

[Djokovic2011]

Fed's two extra finals puts him ahead of Sampras at Wimbledon. Likewise, Pete's two extra finals put him ahead of Fed at Flushing Meadows. Otherwise it implies that a runner up is not just the same as a semi, a quarter or a first round, but the same as not even playing the tournament. A final is a tremendous achievement and should be considered as such.

That Delpo loss in 2009 will always be looked back on as such a missed opportunity. He should have won it, before getting too cute at the end of the second set and then getting all stubborn and trying to ball bash rather than using his variety that always worked so well against JMDP. Would have given him 6 titles, 6 consecutive and he would have been on for the NCYGS at AO 2010 (which he went on to win).



The consistency of holding the joint record at 3 of the 4 is superior to the stand alone record at 1 of the 4.

For example, Fed's 4-1-7-5 is blatantly more impressive than Rafa's 1-9-2-2. Add in that Fed only has the 1 RG due to the guy with the obscene 9 titles. Or by expanding to include his record YEC titles (5th biggest title): 4-1-7-5-6 compared to Rafa's 1-9-2-2-0. So people trying to place Rafa ahead of Fed at the moment just because he holds an insane RG record seems bizarre to me.

I see so much win in this post. Love it!

 

[cc0509]

Until or IF Fed wins an 8th title they are probably tied as co-GOATS.

But Like I said if I had to pick one, I would pick Pete as I feel his game was always more tailor made for grass than Fed's was.

Even if Federer wins another W title which would make him undisputed W GOAT you would be finding some way of demeaning Federer's stand alone title. You better pray Federer does not win one more because then you will have ZERO valid argument.

 

[Djokovic2011]

:shock::shock:


Yea Nadal is all time GOAT on grass. ROFLMAO!!!

Who did Sampras beat that was better than Nadal on grass?

 

[cc0509]

How much extra finals matter is debatable (but it is a non-zero value).

However, consecutive titles do matter.

Both things matter but as I said it is for fanboys to argue about doggie scraps. Bottom line is they are tied at W until Federer can firmly displace Sampras with one more W win.

 

[90's Clay]

Who did Sampras beat that was better than Nadal on grass?

Becker?? Far greater grass resume than Nadal.. Goran on 90's early 00's grass>>>>>Nadal on this grass. Goran was taking a big crap (way past his prime) on the young crowd of the 2000s. (Downing Henman, Rafter, Safin, Roddick etc).


Nadal can't even make it out of the 1st round of Wimbledon past prime

 

[Djokovic2011]

Both things matter but as I said it is for fanboys to argue about doggie scraps. Bottom line is they are tied at W until Federer can firmly displace Sampras with one more W win.

I thought you gave Fed the edge before cc0, now you're saying they're tied.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Becker?? Far greater grass resume than Nadal.. Goran on 90's early 00's grass>>>>>Nadal on this grass. Goran was taking a big crap (way past his prime) on the young crowd of the 2000s. (Downing Henman, Rafter, Safin, Roddick etc).


Nadal can't even make it out of the 1st round of Wimbledon past prime

Becker was a greater grass court player than Nadal but was his performance in '95 better than Nadal's in '08? :?

 

[Prabhanjan]

Pete dropped 23 sets to Fed's 16 on route to their 7 championships. Given that he was more difficult to be broken, this is slightly intriguing. I am not able to say with conviction whether he would have dropped more or less on the slow grass. But this is a bit surprising to me.

Instead of picking one over the other, I would be more happy to pick both at USO and Wimbledon. One thing I can say for sure is that if you to give either of the USO/Wimble to one of them, the other one should automatically go to other.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Until or IF Fed wins an 8th title they are probably tied as co-GOATS.

But Like I said if I had to pick one, I would pick Pete as I feel his game was always more tailor made for grass than Fed's was and I feel the field is he competed against on grass was a bit tougher than Fed's thus making Pete's 7 wimbledon titles a bit more impressive. When you factor in he had to play one of the all time great wimbledon champs Becker, and Goran at the peak of his powers (One of the deadliest grass court players of the last 30-40 years)

Honestly I cannot argue with this (as much as I want to ).

I do feel that level of play/playing style should be factored in more, but it is just too subjective to do properly.

Honestly both Federer and Sampras are about equal at Wimbledon, I am just trying to say that Federer has done better in terms of raw achievements.

I also think Borg is in the discussion if we are talking subjectively.

 

[cc0509]

I thought you gave Fed the edge before cc0, now you're saying they're tied.

You are missing my point. They ARE tied at W and that is really the bottom line. When you have to start to look at things like more finals, more consecutive wins, etc. THEN you can say Federer has the slight edge. But the big thing is winning the title and they have both won seven. The ONLY way Federer will becoming the stand-alone King there is to win one more title. Then these Sampras fanboys can go jump.

 

[90's Clay]

Becker was a greater grass court player than Nadal but was his performance in '95 better than Nadal's in '08? :?

I would say a few of Goran's performances at Wimbledon during his peak along with his 2001 run outshine Nadal's 08 Wimbledon level anyways. Becker was a bit older by then but certainly knew how to play on grass. He was a wimbledon legend with plenty of gas in the tank still from 95-96.

Id also rather play a baseliner Nadal on grass than a big hitter zoning as well. Grass SHOULD benefit the aggressor/big hitter/bigger server (regardless of speed) than it should the more reactive baseline style. So big hitters with aggressive games are fearing than a baseliner should be

 

[Deleted member 688153]

I would say a few of Goran's performances at Wimbledon during his peak along with his 2001 run outshine Nadal's 08 Wimbledon level anyways. Becker was a bit older by then but certainly knew how to play on grass. He was a wimbledon legend with plenty of gas in the tank still from 95-96.

Id also rather play a baseliner Nadal on grass than a big hitter zoning as well. Grass SHOULD benefit the aggressor/big hitter/bigger server (regardless of speed) than it should the more reactive baseline style. So big hitters with aggressive games are fearing than a baseliner should be

Of course it should, but grass is green clay these days, especially by the final.

 

[Djokovic2011]

You are missing my point. They ARE tied at W and that is really the bottom line. When you have to start to look at things like more finals, more consecutive wins, etc. THEN you can say Federer has the slight edge. But the big thing is winning the title and they have both won seven. The ONLY way Federer will becoming the stand-alone King there is to win one more title. Then these Sampras fanboys can go jump.

So just to confirm cc0. You are saying that Fed has the better record at Wimbledon than Pete, just like Novak's is better at the USO than Nadal's at the AO? :wink:

 

[Strobe Lights]

Id also rather play a baseliner Nadal on grass than a big hitter zoning as well.

I find it highly unlikely that anyone would choose to play 2008 Nadal over 1995 Becker on end of the second week 2008 Wimbledon grass.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

So just to confirm cc0. You are saying that Fed has the better record at Wimbledon than Pete, just like Novak's is better at the USO than Nadal's at the AO? :wink:

You two need to get a room!

 

[Deleted member 688153]

In fairness mate, Novak never really had the opportunity to win the AO on Rebound Ace since it was before he hit his prime so it seems a little unfair to hold that against him.

That isn't Djokovic's fault, no, but it equally is not Federer's fault.

He still achieved it, just like Connors' 3-surface USO wins, even though Connors was probably the only ATG who had the opportunity.

 

[Chico]

Okay, forget the runner-ups.

Federer has 5 consec. W titles. Sampras doesn't.

Federer has 5 consec. USO titles. Sampras doesn't.

Fed is better at both, even when only looking at titles.

So you agree that number of consecutive titles is the tiebreaker in case of same number of titles in particular slam.

So who is greater AO champion and AO open era GOAT? Djokovic, Agassi or Federer?

 

[Djokovic2011]

So you agree that number of consecutive titles is the tiebreaker in case of same number of titles in particular slam.

So who is greater AO champion and AO open era GOAT? Djokovic, Agassi or Federer?

Good catch Chico!

 

[Chico]

So to summarize:

Wimbledon Fed > Wimbledon Sampras
AO Novak > AO Fed/Agassi
USO Novak > AO NAdal.

No ifs, ands and buts. Pure consistently applied facts and math.

Thank you very much.

 

[Djokovic2011]

So to summarize:

Wimbledon Fed > Wimbledon Sampras
AO Novak > AO Fed/Agassi
USO Novak > AO NAdal.

No ifs, ands and buts. Pure consistently applied facts and math.

Thank you very much.

Cheers Chico!