Greater Wimbledon Champion - Fed vs Sampras?

[Deleted member 688153]

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?

Consecutive titles is one of the tiebreakers, and it matters more than any other single non-title category.

Fed's extra final is still worth something (I was simply using 90's Clay's logic back at him), but importantly he has 11 consecutive SFs (nobody comes close to this anywhere let alone the AO), has won on two different surfaces, and has also won an AO title without dropping a set (not even 2011 Djokovic did this).

Combined, these feats outweigh 3 vs. 2 consecutive titles easily, and none of the above comes into play when discussing Fed/Sampras at Wimbledon.

Nice try though.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

USO Novak > AO NAdal.

Nobody disagrees on this.
Certainly not me.

Novak has many more finals etc.

 

[Chico]

Consecutive titles is one of the tiebreakers, and it matters more than any other single non-title category.

Fed's extra final is still worth something (I was simply using 90's Clay's logic back at him), but importantly he has 11 consecutive SFs (nobody comes close to this anywhere let alone the AO), has won on two different surfaces, and has also won an AO title without dropping a set (not even 2011 Djokovic did this).

Combined, these feats outweigh 3 vs. 2 consecutive titles easily, and none of the above comes into play when discussing Fed/Sampras at Wimbledon.

Nice try though.

Cherry picking at its worst. Either admit Novak is AO GOAT, or your argument for Fed vs Sampras is worthless.

 

[Chico]

Cheers Chico!

There is no way around it now

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Cherry picking at its worst. Either admit Novak is AO GOAT, or your argument for Fed vs Sampras is worthless.

No it isn't.

It is acknowledging that Fed has some special achievements at the AO which make him a truly great player there.

Sampras does not have such achievements at Wimbledon, these are only relevant in terms of Federer/Djokovic AO discussion.

If Sampras had 11 consec. SFs at Wimbledon, this would need to be factored in.
But he doesn't.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Federer > Djokovic at the AO for now.
This is obvious to anybody who is sane of mind.

I do think that Djokovic will win a 5th title though, so why are you upset about this?

 

[cc0509]

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:

NO! I am saying Federer and Sampras are tied at W with seven titles just like Nadal and Djokovic are tied with one title each at the AO and USO.
The next thing to look at would be how many finals a player reached and that can be used as a fanboy argument to give a player the slight edge over another player, but that is all. It is basically arguing about doggie scraps.
All that matters is the title!

Bottom line:

Federer and Sampras are tied at W with seven titles
Federer, Agassi and Djokovic are tied at the AO with four titles
Nadal and Djokovic are tied at Wimbledon with two titles
Nadal and Djokovic are tied at the AO and USO with one title each.

You only use the extra finals or consecutive title arguments to try and break the tie and argue for your favorite player. Who really cares about all of that extraneous crap though? The object is to win the title and if you are great player and don't do that, you fail. They all say they are happy to make the final but they are all lying.

 

[Djokovic2011]

NO! I am saying Federer and Sampras are tied at W with seven titles just like Nadal and Djokovic are tied with one title each at the AO and USO.
The next thing to look at would be how many finals a player reached and that can be used as a fanboy argument to give a player the slight edge over another player, but that is all. It is basically arguing about doggie scraps.
All that matters is the title!

Bottom line:

Federer and Sampras are tied at W with seven titles
Federer, Agassi and Djokovic are tied at the AO with four titles
Nadal and Djokovic are tied at Wimbledon with two titles
Nadal and Djokovic are tied at the AO and USO with one title each.

You only use the extra finals or consecutive title arguments to try and break the tie and argue for your favorite player. Who really cares about all of that extraneous crap though? The object is to win the title and if you are great player and don't do that, you fail. They all say they are happy to make the final but they are all lying.

Yes, but you'll admit that the player with more finals still has the better record, even if it's only slight and even if it's only for us fanboys to argue over?

 

[Djokovic2011]

It's amazing the lack of respect a player's great consistency receives on these boards. I know exactly how the Evert fans feel on the Former Pro Player section now. :sad:

 

[cc0509]

Yes, but you'll admit that the player with more finals still has the better record, even if it's only slight and even if it's only for us fanboys to argue over?

Yes, it gives a player a "slight" edge over the other player if push comes to shove.

 

[cc0509]

It's amazing the lack of respect a player's great consistency receives on these boards. I know exactly how the Evert fans feel on the Former Pro Player section now. :sad:

Consistency in winning titles is more important and Evert did lots of winning of titles.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Consistency in winning titles is more important and Evert did lots of winning of titles.

She also did a lot of losing in slam finals but losing in a final is still better than losing in the 1st round, no? :?

 

[Deleted member 688153]

It's amazing the lack of respect a player's great consistency receives on these boards. I know exactly how the Evert fans feel on the Former Pro Player section now. :sad:

Like Federer's 11 consecutive AO SFs.

That achievement is likely untouchable.

 

[cc0509]

She also did a lot of losing in slam finals but losing in a final is still better than losing in the 1st round, no? :?

Yes, but bottom line is she has 18 slams, the same number of slams that Navratilova has. They are two legends of the game.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Yes, it gives a player a "slight" edge over the other player if push comes to shove.

Wow, it really is a case of "title or nothing" with you isn't it cc0? :shock: I don't know if you have kids babe but if you do, they must feel under an awful lot of pressure from you if they ever enter competitions. :|

 

[Prabhanjan]

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

Once 93 rolled in, Goran was not beating Pete on Wimbledon, no matter what. If Fed had not taken Pete out in 01, I don't see any of Goran, Henman, Rafter, and Agassi stopping Pete from picking the trophy.

Becker had taken 2 sets out of 3 matches against Pete at Wimbledon, both in tie-breakers. How was he ever beating Pete without breaking him at all? He never looked like winning Wimbledon 92 onwards. Becker is to Pete what Agassi to Fed at USO. No matter how better they try, they can make the match only competitive without really winning it.

Whether grass should be faster or not is a different question. The fact is that Goran+Becker+Agassi did not stop Pete from winning a single Wimbledon like Nadal stopped Federer. This honor goes to Krajieck and Federer. Nadal did more damage to Federer than those three greats could possibly do to Pete.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Yes, but bottom line is she has 18 slams, the same number of slams that Navratilova has. They are two legends of the game.

Just out of interest, what do you think is more impressive cc0? 18-4( Serena's slam final record) or 18-16(Evert's)?

 

[Mainad]

Just out of interest, what do you think is more impressive cc0? 18-4( Serena's slam final record) or 18-16(Evert's)?

For 2 players with an equal number of Slam titles, and no CYGS, I believe that the breaker must be the total number of finals played in deciding which one has the better Slam record. In this case, Evert's 34 finals achieved by the age of 33 must trump Serena's 22 finals also achieved by the age of 33.

 

[Djokovic2011]

For 2 players with an equal number of Slam titles, and no CYGS, I believe that the breaker must be the total number of finals played in deciding which one has the better Slam record. In this case, Evert's 34 finals achieved by the age of 33 must trump Serena's 22 finals also achieved by the age of 33.

I couldn't agree with you more Mainad.

 

[Mainad]

I couldn't agree with you more Mainad.

The more I think about it, Evert's 34 finals achieved by the age of 33 is 1 for every year of her life. Incredible achievement!

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

NO! I am saying Federer and Sampras are tied at W with seven titles just like Nadal and Djokovic are tied with one title each at the AO and USO.
The next thing to look at would be how many finals a player reached and that can be used as a fanboy argument to give a player the slight edge over another player, but that is all. It is basically arguing about doggie scraps.
All that matters is the title!

You only use the extra finals or consecutive title arguments to try and break the tie and argue for your favorite player. Who really cares about all of that extraneous crap though?

Well said: the worthless trivia of runner up, semis, etc, is just that--worthless trivia in order to inflate someone who does not have a clear majors record over another (one of the OP's subjects), and we see which two camps abuse this trivia in threads of this kind. Insecurity is not healthy. Instead, they should avoid the go-nowhere inflating of their hero and accept the Wimbledon titles record.

The object is to win the title and if you are great player and don't do that, you fail. They all say they are happy to make the final but they are all lying.

Another rational point. No player fights for runner up or semi positions. That is a typically absurd fanboy concoction which--at its end--trashes the value of the point of the event: to win the major. Anything else is meaningless--or worse, the same, desperate fanboy games.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Just out of interest, what do you think is more impressive cc0? 18-4( Serena's slam final record) or 18-16(Evert's)?

How is this a contest?!?!

That's 12 extra finals!

 

[MichaelNadal]

NO! I am saying Federer and Sampras are tied at W with seven titles just like Nadal and Djokovic are tied with one title each at the AO and USO.
The next thing to look at would be how many finals a player reached and that can be used as a fanboy argument to give a player the slight edge over another player, but that is all. It is basically arguing about doggie scraps.
All that matters is the title!

Bottom line:

Federer and Sampras are tied at W with seven titles
Federer, Agassi and Djokovic are tied at the AO with four titles
Nadal and Djokovic are tied at Wimbledon with two titles
Nadal and Djokovic are tied at the AO and USO with one title each.

You only use the extra finals or consecutive title arguments to try and break the tie and argue for your favorite player. Who really cares about all of that extraneous crap though? The object is to win the title and if you are great player and don't do that, you fail. They all say they are happy to make the final but they are all lying.

That's just about every argument and hypothetical here, which is why I find it so unappealing and pathetic.

 

[Russeljones]

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)

Sampras to me. The quintessential grass court champion.

 

[D.Nalby12]

Greater grass courter obviously is Federer and at Wimbledon slight edge to him based on two extra finals.

 

[Russeljones]

Greater grass courter obviously is Federer and at Wimbledon slight edge to him based on two extra finals.

Obvious? What is obvious is that Federer faced a very average field of grass court players including very, very few specialists. This is all, of course, largely on homogenized grass.

Let's have a look at the dangerous grass court specialists he faced, shall we?

P. Sampras - W
T. Henman - LW
M. Ancic - LWW
M. Philippoussis - W
L. Hewitt - WWW
A. Murray - W
J. Benneteau - W
S. Stakhovsky - L

That list would hardly make Pete quake in his boots, I hope we all agree on that. To Federer's credit, he managed to beat them but for the 3 times he lost. Unfortunately for him, he lost a lot more often to people who are average-at-best grass court players.

Are we going to go through Pete's Wimbledon credentials then? It's enough to mention that he had to contend with Goran, Richard, Patrick, Tim, Todd, Boris, Michael, and a few others most here won't recognize by their first name.

Suffice it to say, I am a big Federer fan but to me he is a victim of the age of tennis he is playing in. If he was playing as a Pete/Agassi contemporary, he would have maybe won fewer Wimbledons and more titles elsewhere. But we would have seen some great Wimbledon matches with him involved. The best we can talk about now are a win against Sampras and two lost finals. Says it all really, doesn't it.

 

[Anti-Fedal]

Tough to say because they played on different grass. For mine, Fed is the king of slow grass and Sampras is the king of fast grass.

 

[kandamrgam]

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"

I second this. For an 8 year period Pete's record is better. Consecutive titles dont better it. 7 titles in 8 years > 6 titles + 5 of them consecutive in 8 years.

 

[kandamrgam]

Once 93 rolled in, Goran was not beating Pete on Wimbledon, no matter what. If Fed had not taken Pete out in 01, I don't see any of Goran, Henman, Rafter, and Agassi stopping Pete from picking the trophy.

Becker had taken 2 sets out of 3 matches against Pete at Wimbledon, both in tie-breakers. How was he ever beating Pete without breaking him at all? He never looked like winning Wimbledon 92 onwards. Becker is to Pete what Agassi to Fed at USO. No matter how better they try, they can make the match only competitive without really winning it.

Whether grass should be faster or not is a different question. The fact is that Goran+Becker+Agassi did not stop Pete from winning a single Wimbledon like Nadal stopped Federer. This honor goes to Krajieck and Federer. Nadal did more damage to Federer than those three greats could possibly do to Pete.

But that doesn't prove Federer faced better competition. It can also mean Federer was worse. The only question regarding competition is caliber of Rafa vs Boris, Andy vs Goran etc.

 

[AngieB]

There used to be a time in tennis when winning the biggest tournaments took precedent over all else. Today, these kids hop around like a lap dog, begging for a treat anytime their favorite tennis player makes it to a grand slam final, as thought they've accomplished absolute greatness and use their over exuberance to determine their favorites ever-mythical "GOAT" status. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Kids today are taught, "everyone is a winner" which only serves to blunt their competitiveness to achieve more and upholds the blandness of mediocrity.

I can't think of any reason to bolster the status of grand slam finals appearances to that of grand slam winner other than embracing lowered expectations of the current generation. Figures. Weak and lazy.

#PTL #JC4Ever

AngieB​

 

[kandamrgam]

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.

This is precisely why we should do away with runner-up being a special criterion. It tells you nothing more than what win % will tell you. Latter shows consistency not just much better, but correctly.

Let's assume Nole plays two more AO finals and loses. So is Nole with 4 W + 2 F better than Roger with 4 W + 1 F ? Record book shows Nole has 0 SF losses at AO. Federer has 6 of them. People play to win titles. Otherwise F is just one rung above SF which is again one above QF. I dont see the special value for F.

Titles + Prime win % = Peak game + consistency. That is all there is to such discussions. And ya the competition, but subjective though.

 

[D.Nalby12]

@Russel

Hey look I give Federer edge on grass based on overall grass achievements. (7 WC+ 7 Halle+ OS> 7 Wimbledon) Federer is greater grass court player if you look towards stats objectively without introducing any subjective theories. We can play 'level of competition game' for all the day but at the end of the day accomplishments matters the most. I've zero interest arguing about level of competition. Same competition I can portray as strongest as well as weakest at the same time based on cherry picking logic but that hardly matters. I believe what record books say and I'm sure after 20-25 years, nobody will talk about competition but accomplishments.

Based on what I saw Federer's skill set on grass > Sampras. Federer in my opinion more complete so I gives him edge.

 

[Russeljones]

@Russel

Hey look I give Federer edge on grass based on overall grass achievements. (7 WC+ 7 Halle+ OS> 7 Wimbledon) Federer is greater grass court player if you look towards stats objectively without introducing any subjective theories. We can play 'level of competition game' for all the day but at the end of the day accomplishments matters the most. I've zero interest arguing about level of competition. Same competition I can portray as strongest as well as weakest at the same time based on cherry picking logic but that hardly matters. I believe what record books say and I'm sure after 20-25 years, nobody will talk about competition but accomplishments.

Based on what I saw Federer's skill set on grass > Sampras. Federer in my opinion more complete so I gives him edge.

I think between the two of us, I have watched Sampras's Wimbledon triumphs and you haven't. It's not a hypothetical discussion. I watched it and know they were far more dangerous. You're confusing this comparison with the "weak era" trolling. Disingenuous.

 

[Deleted member 733170]

Federer.

It's a testament to the 'hate' that there are 134 posts already on this subject...

 

[Deleted member 688153]

I can't think of any reason to bolster the status of grand slam finals appearances to that of grand slam winner other than embracing lowered expectations of the current generation. Figures. Weak and lazy.

Nobody is talking about doing that.

Where titles are equal we can look at other stats as a tie-breaker.
Extra finals are part of this, as are consecutive titles.
Also, other achievements such as 11 consec. SF show consistency.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

This is precisely why we should do away with runner-up being a special criterion. It tells you nothing more than what win % will tell you. Latter shows consistency not just much better, but correctly.

Let's assume Nole plays two more AO finals and loses. So is Nole with 4 W + 2 F better than Roger with 4 W + 1 F ? Record book shows Nole has 0 SF losses at AO. Federer has 6 of them. People play to win titles. Otherwise F is just one rung above SF which is again one above QF. I dont see the special value for F.

Titles + Prime win % = Peak game + consistency. That is all there is to such discussions. And ya the competition, but subjective though.

I am all for considering Prime Win %.
The problem is, that is not what we are doing on here.

Also, measuring the exact length of one's "prime" is subjective.
I would not include Fed's AO 08 results in his "prime win %" because he had mono and was not playing to his full potential, but many would disagree and that is their right.

Basically, if we are going to be objective, we either (1) count their total win %, or (2) we don't count win % at all.
I would rather have no stat than an inaccurate/unfair one, so I would go for the latter option (2).

Do you see what I mean?

 

[kandamrgam]

I am all for considering Prime Win %.
The problem is, that is not what we are doing on here.

Also, measuring the exact length of one's "prime" is subjective.
I would not include Fed's AO 08 results in his "prime win %" because he had mono and was not playing to his full potential, but many would disagree and that is their right.

Basically, if we are going to be objective, we either (1) count their total win %, or (2) we don't count win % at all.
I would rather have no stat than an inaccurate/unfair one, so I would go for the latter option (2).

Do you see what I mean?

My idea is that I dont look at length of one's prime. It's always subjective. Like cheetah is fastest for 500 m, gazelle fastest for 1 km, human fastest for 42 km etc etc. I do have a period in my mind which I believe is the most reasonable of assessing one's peak as well as consistency, which is 7-9 years. It's a reasonable estimate of one's physical peak, say from 21-29 yrs of age usually. For this period Pete wins

 

[Fiji]

Federer of course.

 

[Prabhanjan]

But that doesn't prove Federer faced better competition. It can also mean Federer was worse. The only question regarding competition is caliber of Rafa vs Boris, Andy vs Goran etc.

How is the competition better for Pete when it never beats him? Federer can be as solid as anything and was a mere 2 points away from winning 7 out of 7 which has hardly every been the case about Pete.

Also, Fed faced 5 years consecutively No.2 ranked player in the finals which never happened with Pete which again shows how non-competitive they were, doesn't it

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

There used to be a time in tennis when winning the biggest tournaments took precedent over all else. Today, these kids hop around like a lap dog, begging for a treat anytime their favorite tennis player makes it to a grand slam final, as thought they've accomplished absolute greatness and use their over exuberance to determine their favorites ever-mythical "GOAT" status. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Kids today are taught, "everyone is a winner" which only serves to blunt their competitiveness to achieve more and upholds the blandness of mediocrity.

All true--if they did not suffer from such insecurity, they would not need to use worthless trivia to inflate players they routinely say are the "best" of a major, or laughable GOAT claims.

I can't think of any reason to bolster the status of grand slam finals appearances to that of grand slam winner other than embracing lowered expectations of the current generation. Figures. Weak and lazy.

#PTL #JC4Ever

AngieB​

Yes...intellectually lazy--or just corrupt.

 

[NatF]

They're the same on balance IMO. Pete was better but I think Roger's longevity even that out.

 

[FD3S]

Peak for peak? Sampras would lead if they play on 90's grass , Federer would lead if they play on 2000's grass, so on the whole I'd rate them even.

I mean, for all the flak Sampras takes (thank you 90's Clay :evil the dude was frightening on grass. And Federer's every bit as intimidating at SW19, no matter what the 'weak era' crowd keeps bleating.

 

[kandamrgam]

How is the competition better for Pete when it never beats him? Federer can be as solid as anything and was a mere 2 points away from winning 7 out of 7 which has hardly every been the case about Pete.

Also, Fed faced 5 years consecutively No.2 ranked player in the finals which never happened with Pete which again shows how non-competitive they were, doesn't it

1. I didnt say competition was better for Pete. I really do not know who faced stiffer challenge.

2. What I did state was "Becker+Agassi+Goran not stopping Pete" is a poor argument to make for Federer's competition. Because technically it can also mean Pete was that good or Federer was worse.

 

[Mustard]

Once 93 rolled in, Goran was not beating Pete on Wimbledon, no matter what.

A few points here and there were all that stopped Ivanisevic beating Sampras at the 1995 and 1998 Wimbledons. At 1998 Wimbledon, for example, Ivanisevic had set points for a 2-set lead. Ivanisevic did beat Sampras at 1992 Wimbledon.

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

They're the same on balance IMO. Pete was better but I think Roger's longevity even that out.

I agree with NatF who is probably one of the best posters in the board.

 

[kandamrgam]

They're the same on balance IMO. Pete was better but I think Roger's longevity even that out.

Didnt you once say for you "peak is above longevity"?

 

[NatF]

Didnt you once say for you "peak is above longevity"?

Depends on the degree of both of them. I don't think Pete was so much better than Federer that Federer's better results at Wimbledon over time are eclipsed.

 

[kandamrgam]

Depends on the degree of both of them. I don't think Pete was so much better than Federer's better results at Wimbledon over time are eclipsed.

Fair enough

 

[maruzo]

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
​

Let's put it this way.

He's the only person standing who has the most records. He's the most versatile, has the most winnings and hold the most records.

So if you don't think Federer is GOAT, then you better find another player who has more accomplishments than him.

And no, you can't.

So reality is, If you place Federer as number 2, you'll face the embarrassment of not being able to produce a number 1 player ahead of him.

You don't want to be embarrassed in front of all of us, do you?

 

[Sysyphus]

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?

Actually . . . Federer stands alone on the much coveted capstone that is the Real Slam!