Greater Wimbledon Champion - Fed vs Sampras?

How about a Mt. Rushmore concept for the Open Era slams, trying to capture different eras:

AO

Agassi, Djokovic, Federer, and a joint Swede bust of Wilander/Edberg

RG

Nadal, Borg, a joint Lendl/Wilander bust, and Kuerten

SW19

Borg, a joint Mac/Becker bust, Sampras, and Federer

Open

Connors, a joint Mac/Lendl bust, Sampras, and Federer

Hey, it's the offseason.
 
Gazelle said:
I don't give much importance to never having lost a final.

My motto is: "If someone has never lost a final somewhere, it's because he hasn't made another final."
Click to expand...

So 7 finals is not a significant enough number of finals (for you) to be impressive? Interesting motto.
 
Russeljones said:
So 7 finals is not a significant enough number of finals (for you) to be impressive? Interesting motto.
Click to expand...

Making 7 finals, wining 7 and losing none is much less impressive than making 14 winning 7 and losing 7.

i.e. making a final is much more impressive than losing in 1st round.
 
Chico said:
Making 7 finals, wining 7 and losing none is much less impressive than making 14 winning 7 and losing 7.

i.e. making a final is much more impressive than losing in 1st round.
Click to expand...

Can you try and make your post relevant to what I said? I am commenting on the words of the poster. He seems to be implying that 7 finals are not statistically significant enough. I'd argue against that. I'd say not losing in any of the finals reached, when there is 7 of them, is pretty incredible.

I am not talking about this stat being the tiebreaker between Sampras and Federer at Wimbledon. I outlined my arguments earlier.
 
Bobby Jr said:
Yes.

Your example of 7 titles in 8 years would make sense if Federer only had 5.. but he doesn't. Peak years dominance is a big factor in considering greatness. Sampras set the modern benchmark of 4 in a row 97-2000 and Federer topped it. It's pointless to argue it's not a better achievement.

Breaks between wins shows a sort of dominance but your example of 7 titles in 8 years is just an example of conveniently partisan bookending - Sampras' Wimbledon career isn't defined by his first and last wins - he played it 14 times (in a row) and won it 7 times. Even if you're generous and start the clock from his first major win (1990 US) then he played 12 times, not 8.
Click to expand...

1. Yes he doesn't. He got only 6. 7 > 6. If peak years dominance is a big factor, then the vote goes to Pete.

2. Federer too played 14 times to win 7. A tie again. As I said above, Pete has the prime edge.
 
Djokovic2011 said:
Is winning 5 titles in a row really that much more impressive than winning 4 in a row though? :? Also one could argue that winning 7 titles in 8 years shows greater dominance than 5 consecutive wins so there'll never really be a definitive way of finding out who the greater champion was.
Click to expand...

Indeed it is. Agree with you.
 
kandamrigam said:
1. Yes he doesn't. He got only 6. 7 > 6. If peak years dominance is a big factor, then the vote goes to Pete.
Click to expand...
For peak dominance 5 in a row, while also winning the US Open 5 times in a row and th Aussie Open 3 times in 4 years - makes Pete's dominance in his prime look second rate by comparison.
kandamrigam said:
2. Federer too played 14 times to win 7. A tie again. As I said above, Pete has the prime edge.
Click to expand...
Nope.

From first major win they played 14 times each with 7 wins a piece.. But Federer has two more finals and far fewer chump losses.
 
Bobby Jr said:
For peak dominance 5 in a row, while also winning the US Open 5 times in a row and th Aussie Open 3 times in 4 years - makes Pete's dominance in his prime look second rate by comparison.

Nope.

From first major win they played 14 times each with 7 wins a piece.. But Federer has two more finals and far fewer chump losses.
Click to expand...

I was correcting your first post. What I wrote has nothing to do with who conclusively is better. As I see you're adding new points. And btw this thread is about Wimbledon, just a reminder.
 
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 5 consecutive Wimby titles, 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
 
Sampras for me. He had better grass court competition and when he played his best he was more dominant. At his best he looked invincible on grass.
 
Tennisknowledge99 said:
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 5 consecutive Wimby titles, 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
Click to expand...

You obviously didn't watch Sampras in 2001. Explain why he won exactly 0 title that year. This is a guy who dominated tennis for almost an entire decade and he won 0 title that year. If you think that 2001 Sampras is anywhere close to his best, then you are really having some good cracks there.
 
helloworld said:
You obviously didn't watch Sampras in 2001. Explain why he won exactly 0 title that year. This is a guy who dominated tennis for almost an entire decade and he won 0 title that year. If you think that 2001 Sampras is anywhere close to his best, then you are really having some good cracks there.
Click to expand...

Did I say that Sampras was at his best? I said that Sampras still had motivation to win Slam. I followed tennis much before the Sampras - Agassi era so I'm pretty sure I know how good he was. But you have to admit that his Wimby 2001 match vs Federer wasn't really a bad match for him. Also I'm talking about their 2001 Wimby match debate, not Sampras's overall level in 2001
 
Federer edges Sampras at Wimbledon, and Sampras edges Federer at US Open for the very same reason.
 
zep said:
Sampras for me. He had better grass court competition and when he played his best he was more dominant. At his best he looked invincible on grass.
Click to expand...

Level of competition is subjective so your second sentence holds no water.

The facts that can't dispute is Federer has better results, beat more top 10 players, and of course, beat Sampras who was gunning for his 5th straight W in 2001.
 
First flaw is that we need to focus on grass, not just on W. So, Fed wins.

Then, Fed was more dominant at W anyway, since he won more sets and reached two extra finals.

You have to look how players play past their peak. Then you can see how truly awesome their peak level was, since even past their peak they do great. So, Fed wins here too.

Fed has many small things over Pete, and those things add up. Even Fed's win % is better than Pete's at the same age and sample size.
 
TMF said:
Level of competition is subjective so your second sentence holds no water.

The facts that can't dispute is Federer has better results, beat more top 10 players, and of course, beat Sampras who was gunning for his 5th straight W in 2001.
Click to expand...

Every American knows that Pete had much tougher competition.
 
zep said:
Sampras for me. He had better grass court competition and when he played his best he was more dominant. At his best he looked invincible on grass.
Click to expand...

proof? or just hot air? dominance stats favor Federer (games won, sets lost, etc.). you should try a different angle. Has Pete ever bagelled someone in the W finals?
 
Wimbledon King...

article-0-056F7004000005DC-391_306x555.jpg

...wears gold lame'​
#go girl
 
jg153040 said:
That was in the last set when Ivanisevic gave up. It's much tougher to bagel someone in the first set when they are fresh and ready to fight.
Click to expand...

You say "fresh and ready to fight", while others would say "hadn't warmed up". A bagel is a bagel, regardless.
 
Mustard said:
You say "fresh and ready to fight", while others would say "hadn't warmed up". A bagel is a bagel, regardless.
Click to expand...

True. I was just making fun of people who are straw grasping.

In the end it's hard to separate them. They are very close. Both have 7 titles.

I would still slightly have to go with Fed, only because of his longevity. Winning and making finals after 30 is hard and very impressive.
 
jg153040 said:
True. I was just making fun of people who are straw grasping.

In the end it's hard to separate them. They are very close. Both have 7 titles.

I would still slightly have to go with Fed, only because of his longevity. Winning and making finals after 30 is hard and very impressive.
Click to expand...

I do think nerves played a part in Nadal's poor start to the 2006 Wimbledon final. Nadal had seemingly lost all his ability to speak any coherent English in the pre-match interview. Federer was the 3-time defending champion, but something as big as the Wimbledon final was all new to Nadal at the time, and Nadal had been considered a grass-court novice prior to 2006 Wimbledon, like previous good clay-court players. The biggest worry for Federer fans was their man's poor 1-6 head-to-head record against Nadal going into the match, despite Federer being at the peak of his dominance in the sport.

Sets 2-3 were really competitive, but Federer was too experienced at the time.
 
tennisaddict said:
When you have 17 majors, 6 WTF and 300+ weeks at No.1 and the game that one can only dream, even if he comes in ragged clothes, it would look awesome.
Click to expand...

Thank god Nadal beat Federer in 08 on his home turf where he is the supposed GOAT. Fed has not worn this jacket since as he cannot claim he is the GOAT when there are two players who can consistently outplay him and beat him on the biggest stages when it counts.
 
Mustard said:
That's got to be the worst fashion disaster since the 1980s :oops:
Click to expand...

Almost. In the Top Ten, tho. Anne White went wrong when riding Pony's, leg warmers and a "weight watchers" patch. As though the hideous headband would distract from other.

_40621572_white_200x245.jpg

​


#PTL #JC4Ever

AngieB​
 
Last edited:
Zain786 said:
Thank god Nadal beat Federer in 08 on his home turf where he is the supposed GOAT. Fed has not worn this jacket since as he cannot claim he is the GOAT when there are two players who can consistently outplay him and beat him on the biggest stages when it counts.
Click to expand...

EOD, What matters are the titles.
 
Stats suggest Roger Federer.

Zain786 said:
Thank god Nadal beat Federer in 08 on his home turf where he is the supposed GOAT. Fed has not worn this jacket since as he cannot claim he is the GOAT when there are two players who can consistently outplay him and beat him on the biggest stages when it counts.
Click to expand...

Considering that he wore this outfit in 2009 (the year that comes after 2008 as you cannot count) this comment makes no sense.
 
Last edited:
AngieB said:
Almost. In the Top Ten, tho. Anne White went wrong when riding Pony's, leg warmers and a "weight watchers" patch. As though the hideous headband would distract from other.

_40621572_white_200x245.jpg

​
Click to expand...


I reckon Bethanie Mattek-Sands could teach 'em both a thing or two. This is probably one of her more tasteful outfits! :)

Bethanie-Mattek-U.S.-Open-Day-9-Photo-LIFE_1279526969284.jpg
 
Last edited:
AngieB said:
Almost. In the Top Ten, tho. Anne White went wrong when riding Pony's, leg warmers and a "weight watchers" patch. As though the hideous headband would distract from other.
Click to expand...

Venus Williams is up there when it comes to fashion disasters.


Venus-Williams-Fashion-Disaster.jpg


011911_venus_williams_dress_tennis_544.jpg
 
Prabhanjan said:
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. .
Click to expand...


Exactly. I was a big Becker fan and I am first to admit that I don't remember any great performance from Becker in Wimbledon after losing to Stich in 1991. (Except maybe beating Agassi after being down 2-6, 1-4 in 95 SF but only after discarding traditional grass court tennis and taking Agassi head on in baseline game) Many people, like 90s Clay, very questionably call Becker great rival of Pete Sampras on grass but Becker was all spent before they started meeting in Wimbledon. Even before meeting Sampras, Becker had lost to Agassi in conditions tailor made for a grass court great to whip a baseliner (fast grass, wet conditions). Yes if Sampras would have played Becker/Edberg before 92 it would have been a serious grass court competition for him.

Calling Goran has a big rival is also not true. He had great game for grass but we all know what a nut case he was. From 1990 his record at Wimbledon was SF, 2R, F, 3R, F, SF, QF, 2R, F, 4R, 1R & W. He even lost (kind of forfeited actually) to Leander Paes after leading 2-0 on GRASS, in a Davis Cup match, losing the last set 6-1.

And then there are people who say titles are all that counts. So a Michael Stich is equal to Goran as far as Wimbledon is concerned ... Right ??? Come on, have some sanity here. Sampras was one of the all time great at wimbledon. But Federer has surprassed him with 7 Wins and 2 runners up, both times losing in the 5th set to players who will be featured in all time great conversations 10 years from now.
 
Vish13 said:
Exactly. I was a big Becker fan and I am first to admit that I don't remember any great performance from Becker in Wimbledon after losing to Stich in 1991. (Except maybe beating Agassi after being down 2-6, 1-4 in 95 SF but only after discarding traditional grass court tennis and taking Agassi head on in baseline game) Many people, like 90s Clay, very questionably call Becker great rival of Pete Sampras on grass but Becker was all spent before they started meeting in Wimbledon. Even before meeting Sampras, Becker had lost to Agassi in conditions tailor made for a grass court great to whip a baseliner (fast grass, wet conditions). Yes if Sampras would have played Becker/Edberg before 92 it would have been a serious grass court competition for him.

Calling Goran has a big rival is also not true. He had great game for grass but we all know what a nut case he was. From 1990 his record at Wimbledon was SF, 2R, F, 3R, F, SF, QF, 2R, F, 4R, 1R & W. He even lost (kind of forfeited actually) to Leander Paes after leading 2-0 on GRASS, in a Davis Cup match, losing the last set 6-1.

And then there are people who say titles are all that counts. So a Michael Stich is equal to Goran as far as Wimbledon is concerned ... Right ??? Come on, have some sanity here. Sampras was one of the all time great at wimbledon. But Federer has surprassed him with 7 Wins and 2 runners up, both times losing in the 5th set to players who will be featured in all time great conversations 10 years from now.
Click to expand...
Yes, Stich = Goran as far as Wimbledon is concerned. Some may say Stich is greater because Goran won his only Wimbledon because of Federer.
 
It's really hard to say - but I'll go Sampras. I'll take efficiency when it comes to the same # of titles. Yes Sampras could have had more losses...if he kept playing into his later years.

But really who cares, they're both kings.
 
helloworld said:
Yes, Stich = Goran as far as Wimbledon is concerned. Some may say Stich is greater because Goran won his only Wimbledon because of Federer.
Click to expand...

And then ... do we agree that Pete is not better than Fed in any of the slams, be it Wimbledon or USO since he easily loses out at the AO and FO?
 
jg153040 said:
First flaw is that we need to focus on grass, not just on W. So, Fed wins.

Then, Fed was more dominant at W anyway, since he won more sets and reached two extra finals.

You have to look how players play past their peak. Then you can see how truly awesome their peak level was, since even past their peak they do great. So, Fed wins here too.

Fed has many small things over Pete, and those things add up. Even Fed's win % is better than Pete's at the same age and sample size.
Click to expand...

1. Why is it a flaw to focus on Wimbledon?

2. What sample size? Do not generalize. Roger has higher win% for a 7 year period. Pete got it for 8 year period and 9 year period. Roger got it for 14 year period ~ whole career. I will take 7-9 year period to be better indicator of consistency and Pete has the edge here, but only slightly. Roger might be the better player since one can argue he faced stiffer competition, but win% in prime is not one supporting Roger.

3. For which period was Roger more dominant than Pete "to win more sets"? A player is anyway winning only 3 sets to win a match. Did you mean whole career? Did you mean Pete got walk-overs/retirements? Did you mean "fewer sets lost"?
 
Last edited:
kandamrigam said:
1. Why is it a flaw to focus on Wimbledon?

2. What sample size? Do not generalize. Roger has higher win% for a 7 year period. Pete got it for 8 year period and 9 year period. Roger got it for 14 year period ~ whole career. I will take 7-9 year period to be better indicator of consistency and Pete has the edge here, but only slightly. Roger might be the better player since one can argue he faced stiffer competition, but win% in prime is not one supporting Roger.

3. For which period was Roger more dominant than Pete "to win more sets"? A player is anyway winning only 3 sets to win a match. Did you mean whole career? Did you mean Pete got walk-overs/retirements? Did you mean "fewer sets lost"?
Click to expand...

1.Because W is not everything on grass. It's the most important, but I think other tournaments have some importance. When we talk about clay goat, we don't just focus on the FO. We also admire Rafa's streaks.

2.We need to look when Sampras retired. Fed's win rate is skewed, cuz he is past his prime. So, we need to use Fed's age at the same age Pete retired. So, Fed wins there.

3.I meant losing less sets in their careers. So, that is dominance too.

If we use their grass stats, Fed leads by some margins. But, if we go by W only, then they are very close, I agree. I'm very simple, I think 2 extra finals is enough to give Fed a slight edge. Not to mention, Fed won 5 in a row.

I mean why wouldn't anyone want to have 2 extra runner up trophies? I mean silver medal is not gold, but silver is better than nothin, yes?

By the same logic, Pete is better at USO too. Same situation, 2 extra runner ups.
 
John6239 said:
Federer. Federer has more grass titles overall also.
Click to expand...

Although, the thread was only at W. What sells me is 2 extra runner ups. Longevity, that Fed can still be a contender at this old age is impressive.

Sampras has chosen to retire and sit on the couch, while Fed is still grinding it out. So, why shouldn't Federer be rewarded for that?
 
jg153040 said:
Although, the thread was only at W. What sells me is 2 extra runner ups. Longevity, that Fed can still be a contender at this old age is impressive.

Sampras has chosen to retire and sit on the couch, while Fed is still grinding it out. So, why shouldn't Federer be rewarded for that?
Click to expand...

Federer ahead of Sampras at Wimbledon for the very same reason why Nadal is ahead of Djokovic at Wimbledon.

Sampras ahead of Federer at US Open for same reason also.
 
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
12K
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
4K
tudwell
T
Winner Sinner
  • Poll Poll
[POLL) Sinner 2024 vs Djokovic 2023
2
Replies
51
Views
2K
Winner Sinner
Winner Sinner
Walenty
  • Poll Poll
Time to ask again: Who's the best up-and-comer on tour?
Replies
26
Views
3K
Tshooter
Tshooter
Back
Top