How can Kuerten, Wilander, and Lendl be ranked above Federer at French?

[jg153040]

Those arguing that Federer should be at the same level of Kuerten are using pseudo Nadal fan arguments. Where by "peak play" and supposed "tougher competition" bridge the gap between two players where player A (Kuerten) has substantially better achievements.

It's only partly pseudo. Because Federer has greater consistency than Kuerten and greater longevity.

Actually if we exclude RG finals, Fed was way more dominant and consistent than Kuerten vs the field.

The only difference is Kuerten didn't play Nadal in those finals.

It's a fact Nadal is tougher rival than Kuerten's rivals.

There are some other things Fed has in his favor:
Fed bageled Nadal and Kuerten on clay. Fed is undefeated vs Ferrero, Almagro, Ferrer on clay. Fed defeated best clay version of Nole in 2011.

I mean why did Kuerten do better than Fed only in RG finals? If he is greater, why didn't he do better everywhere? So, it's logical to assume it's Rafa factor.

 

[Mustard]

It's only partly pseudo. Because Federer has greater consistency than Kuerten and greater longevity.

Kuerten got hip injuries and surgery, which ended any chance of longevity in that sense.

Actually if we exclude RG finals, Fed was way more dominant and consistent than Kuerten vs the field.

Kuerten was the sort player that had to play his way into form, to find that groove. There were some matches when he was flat and never got going, like against Medvedev in 1999, and until he was match point down against Russell in 2001. Kuerten's best form was when he got into groove and rode the momentum, and that's supposed to be tougher on clay than any other surface.

The only difference is Kuerten didn't play Nadal in those finals.

Difference in what? Kuerten faced tough challenges from Kafelnikov (former French Open champion), Norman (who beat Kuerten in the 2000 Rome final), Ferrero (who beat Kuerten in the 2001 Rome final), yet at the French Open, Kuerten delivered while under pressure to prove a point (i.e. that he was the best player on clay).

Kafelnikov once said that he thinks that Kuerten stopped him being a 4-time French Open champion. This is essentially the same sort of argument being used when acting like Federer is effectively a 6-time French Open champion without Nadal.

It's a fact Nadal is tougher rival than Kuerten's rivals.

It's an opinion. One that I share, but still an opinion.

There are some other things Fed has in his favor:
Fed bageled Nadal and Kuerten on clay. Fed is undefeated vs Ferrero, Almagro, Ferrer on clay. Fed defeated best clay version of Nole in 2011.

Kuerten has bigger things in his favour, i.e. that he won 3 French Opens and beat his biggest rivals. If we going into masters events (since you mention Federer's bagels over Kuerten and Nadal), then Kuerten has won Monte Carlo twice, and also won Rome and Hamburg. Federer has not won Monte Carlo nor Rome. This revisionism to make out that Kuerten is not better than Federer at the French Open, or on clay, is getting ridiculous. The underrating of players like the Ferrero of 2000-2003, is also ridiculous.

I mean why did Kuerten do better than Fed only in RG finals? If he is greater, why didn't he do better everywhere? So, it's logical to assume it's Rafa factor.

Kuerten has won Monte Carlo, twice. Federer has never won Monte Carlo
Kuerten has won Rome. Federer has never won Rome
Kuerten has won 3 French Opens. Federer has won 1 French Open.

You see? There are other things that Kuerten did better than Federer. Federer getting beaten so often by Nadal is not a positive for Federer, it's a positive for Nadal.

 

[jg153040]

Finally somebody seeing the light and telling it like it is So many delusional and blind fanatics in this thread.

Federer is not on Guga's level regarding the French Open nor will he ever be.

3 RG > 1 RG Deal with it!

And you know what's funny? You people, don't like when somebody's questioning Federer's competition from 2004-2007 but here you are, doing the same to Kuerten, questioning his competition on clay.

Why don't you listen to and live by what you preach? You can't have it both ways.

When somebody even dares to question his competition in his most dominant years, you instantly jump on his back.

And you know what? Federer can't have it both ways. He got away with a very weak competition on grass and a slower grass version compared to the 90s and all those grass specialists, so something gotta give.

That's why he got a stronger rival on clay and probably the best ever.

You don't see me going around and saying Rafa should be held higher on the all time list of hardcourt and grasscourt specialists, now do you?

After all, Rafa would have definitely won many more grasscourt and hardcourt titles, if it weren't for Federer (one of the 2 greatest grasscourt players and the greatest hardcourt player of all time) and Djokovic (one of the greatest hardcourt players of all time).

Should I be saying that Rafa is on par with Wimbledon champions such as Laver (4), McEnroe (3), Becker (3) and even Connors (2) and Edberg (2) and only a tier below Borg (5) because of all the lost finals to Federer (one of the 2 greatest grasscourt players of all time)?

Should I be saying that Rafa is on par with AO and US Open champions such as Agassi (4 AO, 2 UO), McEnroe (4 UO), Lendl (2 AO, 3UO) and a tier below Sampras at the UO (5), but on par at the AO (2), a tier below Connors and Federer at the UO (5), but almost on par with Federer at the AO (4) because of the lost finals to Djokovic (one of the greatest hardcourt players of all time) at the AO and UO?

The answer is no and you know it. And finally, should I be saying that Rafa is the greatest of all time because of some supposed weak competition of Federer between 2004 and 2007? The answer is no as well.

Respect the players and their achievements. Respect Guga. After all, you want people to stop underrating and questioning Federer's competition in his most dominant years. Why don't you do the same?

It's all about the number of titles and in that regard 3 > 1. That's all there is to it.

I know that it's circular talking about Fed's competition on clay vs Kuerten. But we are talking about only one guy here, Nadal, not entire clay field. And we have such unique situation here that we have to put things in context and make an exception.

I mean Rafa not only is the clay goat, but is more dominant here than anyone on any surface. And we have unique situation that Fed lost to Rafa 5 times at RG. Also Kuerten did only better vs Fed at those RG finals. Anything else, Fed leads. Isn't this a strange coincidence that Kuerten only does better in finals, where there is no Nadal? Also Federer is 4-0 vs Ferrero on clay.

Actually it's you who are underrating Rafa's competition here. You say Federer is not good competition to Rafa if you say he can't be the same level as Kuerten. But I think Fed is tough competition on clay, Rafa is just insanely good.

I'm asking you again, if Kuerten is so above Federer, why is Federer more dominant if we exclude RG finals?

 

[Mustard]

Do you not consider Federer a good clay court player Mustard?

Of course I do, I'm just mentioning where Kuerten was at at the time of 2002 Hamburg. This was no longer peak Kuerten, due to what had happened after the 2001 US Open with the colossal drop in form, and the surgery that he had on his hip in February 2002.

As good as I think Hewitt played in 2001, and was glad to see him as the year end world number 1 at the age of 20 (with Hewitt being my second favourite player behind Ivanisevic at the time), it's pretty obvious that Kuerten's injury ruined him from being a certain year end world number 1 for the second year in a row. Kuerten went into the 2001 US Open as the favourite, having just won 2001 Cincinnati against a very strong field (Kuerten beat Roddick, Haas, Ivanisevic, Kafelnikov, Henman and Rafter), so by this point Kuerten was making strong progress on hardcourt also. At the time that Kuerten had the surgery, he had lost 11 out of his previous 12 matches.

 

[Djokovic2011]

@Mustard. I kinda get where you're coming from but if you don't mind my saying so it does seem like you're trying your best to do a number on Roger. Let me ask you again- do you consider Federer to be a good clay court player? Average? Bad? I'd really like to know your opinion in this.

 

[jg153040]

Kuerten got hip injuries and surgery, which ended any chance of longevity in that sense.



Kuerten was the sort player that had to play his way into form, to find that groove. There were some matches when he was flat and never got going, like against Medvedev in 1999, and until he was match point down against Russell in 2001. Kuerten's best form was when he got into groove and rode the momentum, and that's supposed to be tougher on clay than any other surface.



Difference in what? Kuerten faced tough challenges from Kafelnikov (former French Open champion), Norman (who beat Kuerten in the 2000 Rome final), Ferrero (who beat Kuerten in the 2001 Rome final), yet at the French Open, Kuerten delivered while under pressure to prove a point (i.e. that he was the best player on clay).

Kafelnikov once said that he thinks that Kuerten stopped him being a 4-time French Open champion. This is essentially the same sort of argument being used when acting like Federer is effectively a 6-time French Open champion without Nadal.



It's an opinion. One that I share, but still an opinion.



Kuerten has bigger things in his favour, i.e. that he won 3 French Opens and beat his biggest rivals. If we going into masters events (since you mention Federer's bagels over Kuerten and Nadal), then Kuerten has won Monte Carlo twice, and also won Rome and Hamburg. Federer has not won Monte Carlo nor Rome. This revisionism to make out that Kuerten is not better than Federer at the French Open, or on clay, is getting ridiculous. The underrating of players like the Ferrero of 2000-2003, is also ridiculous.



Kuerten has won Monte Carlo, twice. Federer has never won Monte Carlo
Kuerten has won Rome. Federer has never won Rome
Kuerten has won 3 French Opens. Federer has won 1 French Open.

You see? There are other things that Kuerten did better than Federer. Federer getting beaten so often by Nadal is not a positive for Federer, it's a positive for Nadal.

I would normally argue, but you are too biased and have very inconsistent logic. You contradict yourself all the time. And then you just throw in facts without any purpose. I can't have that. You are a great example of a guy with great knowledge but doesn't know how to put data in context.
It's sort of like arguing with a computer.

 

[Mustard]

@Mustard. I kinda get where you're coming from but if you don't mind my saying so it does seem like you're trying your best to do a number on Roger. Let me ask you again- do you consider Federer to be a good clay court player? Average? Bad? I'd really like to know your opinion in this.

Of course Federer is a good clay-court player. I'm just trying to get some perspective, i.e. that Federer losing all those matches to Nadal is a positive for Nadal (on which much of Nadal's legacy has been built). For Federer, it's a negative that he lost all those matches to Nadal, yet the way some people make out, you'd think it was a positive.

Kuerten is also very underrated by some people these days, and so is his competition such as Ferrero. Admittedly, they don't have longevity on their side due to unfortunate injury/illness problems, but back in the early 2000s, they were the best clay-court players.

 

[jhhachamp]

Finally somebody seeing the light and telling it like it is So many delusional and blind fanatics in this thread.

Federer is not on Guga's level regarding the French Open nor will he ever be.

3 RG > 1 RG Deal with it!

And you know what's funny? You people, don't like when somebody's questioning Federer's competition from 2004-2007 but here you are, doing the same to Kuerten, questioning his competition on clay.

Why don't you listen to and live by what you preach? You can't have it both ways.

When somebody even dares to question his competition in his most dominant years, you instantly jump on his back.

And you know what? Federer can't have it both ways. He got away with a very weak competition on grass and a slower grass version compared to the 90s and all those grass specialists, so something gotta give.

That's why he got a stronger rival on clay and probably the best ever.

Who exactly are you referring to? I think you should quote the actual posts you have issue with so we can have a better idea what you are talking about.

I think Federer faced an average field overall from 2004-2007, and a very good field from 2008-present. His competition on clay was as tough as it gets though, having to deal with peak Nadal for so many of his best years.

I don't think Kuerten had easy clay court competition during his prime, but I don't think it was nearly as tough as Federer faced on clay. Please note that I never said Federer is on par with Kuerten on clay.

You don't see me going around and saying Rafa should be held higher on the all time list of hardcourt and grasscourt specialists, now do you?

After all, Rafa would have definitely won many more grasscourt and hardcourt titles, if it weren't for Federer (one of the 2 greatest grasscourt players and the greatest hardcourt player of all time) and Djokovic (one of the greatest hardcourt players of all time).

Should I be saying that Rafa is on par with Wimbledon champions such as Laver (4), McEnroe (3), Becker (3) and even Connors (2) and Edberg (2) and only a tier below Borg (5) because of all the lost finals to Federer (one of the 2 greatest grasscourt players of all time)?

Should I be saying that Rafa is on par with AO and US Open champions such as Agassi (4 AO, 2 UO), McEnroe (4 UO), Lendl (2 AO, 3UO) and a tier below Sampras at the UO (5), but on par at the AO (2), a tier below Connors and Federer at the UO (5), but almost on par with Federer at the AO (4) because of the lost finals to Djokovic (one of the greatest hardcourt players of all time) at the AO and UO?

This is a ridiculous analogy and you know it.

1. Nadal lost to many players besides Federer and Djokovic throughout the years on hard court slams during his best years, so comparing that to how Federer was stopped at the French by 1 player is laughable.
2. Federer and Djokovic were not nearly as dominant on hard and grass court slams as Nadal was on clay, so the competition argument goes out the window.

If Federer had won Wimbledon 8 of 9 years during Nadal's prime, beating Nadal in 5 finals along the way...then you might be able to say that your example is similar to the one you are attacking.

 

[Mustard]

I would normally argue, but you are too biased and have very inconsistent logic. You contradict yourself all the time. And then you just throw in facts without any purpose. I can't have that. You are a great example of a guy with great knowledge but doesn't know how to put data in context.
It's sort of like arguing with a computer.

I fail to see how Federer can be ranked above Kuerten at the French Open, or on clay, when Kuerten achieved so much on the surface in just a handful of years. Kuerten sprung a huge surprise with his 1997 French Open win, when ranked 66 in the world, and from 1999-2001, won 2 more French Opens and all 3 of the clay masters.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Of course Federer is a good clay-court player. I'm just trying to get some perspective, i.e. that Federer losing all those matches to Nadal is a positive for Nadal (on which much of Nadal's legacy has been built). For Federer, it's a negative that he lost all those matches to Nadal, yet the way some people make out, you'd think it was a positive.

Kuerten is also very underrated by some people these days, and so is his competition such as Ferrero. Admittedly, they don't have longevity on their side due to unfortunate injury/illness problems, but back in the early 2000s, they were the best clay-court players.

I don't think anyone's trying to make out that it's a postive that Federer lost all those finals to Nadal, rather that it's a positive that he didn't crash out earlier in the tournament to a lower ranked player[which would've benefitted Fed in the H2H with Nadal] and only ended up losing to arguably the greatest ever player on that particular surface.

 

[helloworld]

Kuerten achieved 3 times more than Federer at RG. You Fa-rds try to put Sampras 1 tier below Federer with only 3 more slams(3/14 =21%). So 21% more achievement puts you 1 tier higher but 300% more achievement put you in a lower position? Again, Kuerten achieved 3 times more than Federer at RG, so by Fa-rd logic, Federer should archive 42 slams to equal Sampras.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Kuerten achieved 3 times more than Federer at RG. You Fa-rds try to put Sampras 1 tier below Federer with only 3 more slams(3/14 =21%). So 21% more achievement puts you 1 tier higher but 300% more achievement put you in a lower position? Again, Kuerten achieved 3 times more than Federer at RG, so by Fa-rd logic, Federer should archive 42 slams to equal Sampras.

I doubt if the vast majority of Fed fans are that bothered that Kuerten is ahead of him on clay. After all Federer is a million levels ahead of Kuerten on every other surface[and in every other metric] so in the grand scheme of things who cares?

 

[Tennis_Hands]

The point is that Kuerten overcame his rivals and won 3 French Open titles in all, while Federer was bested by his biggest rival 5 times at the event and won 1 French Open. Let's deal with what actually happened, objective reality. Talking about who's a tougher rival is a subjective thing, an opinion, and therefore has a personal bias when people take the argument in that direction. I don't care who you are, but if you say "person 1 is a stronger rival than person 2", you are putting a personal opinion forward, which has bias.

OK.

Let us try this.

Nadal 8 times RG champion.

Ferrero 1 time RG champion.

Facts say Nadal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ferrero at RG.

You know, let us deal with what actually happened.

:roll:

 

[Mustard]

OK.

Let us try this.

Nadal 8 times RG champion.

Ferrero 1 time RG champion.

Facts say Nadal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ferrero at RG.

You know, let us deal with what actually happened.

:roll:

I do believe that Nadal is better than Ferrero. I've said that already. As you say, Nadal has won 8 French Open titles, which includes 5 wins over Federer. This is why Nadal is referred to by so many people as the greatest clay-court player of all-time. Federer, on the other hand, has seen his main rival achieve this great clay-court legacy largely at his expense, while 1 French Open has been the most that Federer has been able to win, clearly below Kuerten's French Open achievements.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

I do believe that Nadal is better than Ferrero. I've said that already. As you say, Nadal has won 8 French Open titles, which includes 5 wins over Federer. This is why Nadal is referred to by so many people as the greatest clay-court player of all-time. Federer, on the other hand, has seen his main rival achieve this great clay-court legacy largely at his expense, while 1 French Open has been the most that Federer has been able to win, clearly below Kuerten's French Open achievements.

I am quite satisfied, that you dropped the "overcame his main rival" stuff, when making the comparison between Kuerten and Federer.

See, it didn't hurt.

 

[helloworld]

I am quite satisfied, that you dropped the "overcame his main rival" stuff, when making the comparison between Kuerten and Federer.

See, it didn't hurt.

Are you satisfied if I say Federer needs to win 42 slams to equal Sampras when making the comparison between Federer and Sampras? :shock:

 

[Djokovic2011]

I do believe that Nadal is better than Ferrero. I've said that already. As you say, Nadal has won 8 French Open titles, which includes 5 wins over Federer. This is why Nadal is referred to by so many people as the greatest clay-court player of all-time. Federer, on the other hand, has seen his main rival achieve this great clay-court legacy largely at his expense, while 1 French Open has been the most that Federer has been able to win, clearly below Kuerten's French Open achievements.

Out of interest how many FO do you think Federer would've won without Nadal standing on the other side of the net?

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Are you satisfied if I say Federer needs to win 42 slams to equal Sampras when making the comparison between Federer and Sampras? :shock:

In the quiet words of the Butcher: "What in the Heaven's name are you talking about?"

 

[Mustard]

Out of interest how many FO do you think Federer would've won without Nadal standing on the other side of the net?

Hypotheticals again. If we go down this route, how many French Open titles might Kuerten have won without his hip problems?

 

[Djokovic2011]

Hypotheticals again. If we go down this route, how many French Open titles might Kuerten have won without his hip problems?

Lol you're determined you ain't gonna budge an inch when it comes to Federer and the FO! For you it really is a case of "you won 1 and that's your lot, so Nadal was always there to stop you- tough luck!". You're a hard man Mustard.

 

[President]

I have nothing more to say in this debate either, Mustard. You seem to think Kuerten overcoming his main rivals in Kafelnikov and Ferrero means Federer should have done the same with his main rival, Nadal. You ignore the obvious fact that Nadal was about ten times the player of either of these guys, so Kuerten overcoming his rivals by no means makes him better at RG than Federer.

 

[Djokovic2011]

I have nothing more to say in this debate either, Mustard. You seem to think Kuerten overcoming his main rivals in Kafelnikov and Ferrero means Federer should have done the same with his main rival, Nadal. You ignore the obvious fact that Nadal was about ten times the player of either of these guys, so Kuerten overcoming his rivals by no means makes him better at RG than Federer.

I think deep down Mustard knows this and has just been trolling us all along. :wink:

 

[helloworld]

I have nothing more to say in this debate either, Mustard. You seem to think Kuerten overcoming his main rivals in Kafelnikov and Ferrero means Federer should have done the same with his main rival, Nadal. You ignore the obvious fact that Nadal was about ten times the player of either of these guys, so Kuerten overcoming his rivals by no means makes him better at RG than Federer.

Kuerten overcoming his rivals does not make him better than Federer, but his 300% achievement does.

 

[President]

Kuerten overcoming his rivals does not make him better than Federer, but his 300% achievement does.

Don't you understand that he only has "300% achievement" of Federer because Federer's main rival was so bloody tough?

 

[Backhanded Compliment]

Don't you understand that he only has "300% achievement" of Federer because Federer's main rival was so bloody tough?

Or Fed just isnt a natural clay courter and Kuerten was. Winning the French is never an accident and it is possible that Nadal would not have won the French as many times if Kuerten hadn't been so injury prone. Ive never seen a clay court player with more artistry than Kuerten. Fed himself called him the "most stylish player ever"... I think that's the quote.

 

[jhhachamp]

Kuerten achieved 3 times more than Federer at RG. You Fa-rds try to put Sampras 1 tier below Federer with only 3 more slams(3/14 =21%). So 21% more achievement puts you 1 tier higher but 300% more achievement put you in a lower position? Again, Kuerten achieved 3 times more than Federer at RG, so by Fa-rd logic, Federer should archive 42 slams to equal Sampras.

I have to say this post crams a large amount of unintelligent points into a very small space. I am impressed by your trolling abilities.

First of all, what is a Fa-rd??? Are you trying to get into a flame war by throwing out insults?

Second of all, nobody compares grand slams with percentages...they are compared in absolute numbers. 3 is better than 1 not because it is 300% of 1, but because it is 2 more than 1.

Third of all, the difference between Federer and Sampras overall is 3 grand slams, which is more than the 2 more grand slam difference Kuerten has over Federer on clay. Throwing percentages is just ridiculous and you should have realized that from the conclusion you drew.

Fourth of all, in addition to this 3 slam difference between Federer and Sampras, Federer is also ahead of Sampras in just about every other important statistic...when comparing Kuerten to Federer on clay, this is not the case.

 

[helloworld]

I have to say this post crams a large amount of unintelligent points into a very small space. I am impressed by your trolling abilities.

First of all, what is a Fa-rd??? Are you trying to get into a flame war by throwing out insults?

Second of all, nobody compares grand slams with percentages...they are compared in absolute numbers. 3 is better than 1 not because it is 300% of 1, but because it is 2 more than 1.

Third of all, the difference between Federer and Sampras overall is 3 grand slams, which is more than the 2 more grand slam difference Kuerten has over Federer on clay. Throwing percentages is just ridiculous and you should have realized that from the conclusion you drew.

Fourth of all, in addition to this 3 slam difference between Federer and Sampras, Federer is also ahead of Sampras in just about every other important statistic...when comparing Kuerten to Federer on clay, this is not the case.

Let's see what Fed is ahead?
-Year end no#1? Nope, he's even below.
-USO titles? Nope.
-Wimbledon titles? Nope.
-Weeks at #1? Ahead by a tiny bit.
-WTF? Only by 1 tiny bit.

So Federer is wayy ahead of Sampras? Only in your dreams, Fa-Rd.

 

[merlinpinpin]

Let's see what Fed is ahead?
-Year end no#1? Nope, he's even below.

Yep, the only one you've (still) got. Enjoy it while it lasts, you never know how 2014 might pan out.

-USO titles? Nope.

5 each, but in a row for Federer. Some people might say that this is better (more impressive on a resume, anyway).

-Wimbledon titles? Nope.

7 each, same argument as USO above with the 5 in a row.

-Weeks at #1? Ahead by a tiny bit.

A "tiny bit" which turns out to be quite a lot, one being in the 300's and the other in the 200's.

-WTF? Only by 1 tiny bit.

Yet another "tiny bit"? Why don't you do your percentage trick with their respective WTF wins?

So Federer is wayy ahead of Sampras? Only in your dreams, Fa-Rd.

Yep. Now, let's see what you conveniently left out...
- RG
- AO
- M1000's
- Other tournaments
- Clay

I'm not even going to touch their respective streaks, especially in slams, or this is going to get ugly. Oh, and I almost forgot the most important stuff according to the VB:
- H2H
- Strength of competition

So, let's recap--Sampras is:
- trailing at the AO and WTF
- tied at Wimbledon and the USO (for now), but doesn't get such impressive streaks of dominance
- not even on the scoreboard at RG
- trailing (by a mile) in Masters
- trailing in overall tournament wons
- not even a factor on clay

All of that against a much weaker field than Federer, and you can't even parade the H2H, as he lost their only match, on his favourite surface, where he had won the four previous years. (Yeah, that's a 100% loss percentage, as you seem to love them, and don't forget that he lost to a "teenage" Federer, yet another important distinction for VB.)

So, tell us how they should be in the same tier, again?

 

[jhhachamp]

Let's see what Fed is ahead?
-Year end no#1? Nope, he's even below.
-USO titles? Nope.
-Wimbledon titles? Nope.
-Weeks at #1? Ahead by a tiny bit.
-WTF? Only by 1 tiny bit.

So Federer is wayy ahead of Sampras? Only in your dreams, Fa-Rd.

As I said, "Federer is also ahead of Sampras in just about every other important statistic." The fact that try your hardest and can only come up with a handful of exceptions, and that 2 of 5 of your exceptions are not actually exceptions, just proves my point. Thank you.

 

[helloworld]

Yep, the only one you've (still) got. Enjoy it while it lasts, you never know how 2014 might pan out.



5 each, but in a row for Federer. Some people might say that this is better (more impressive on a resume, anyway).



7 each, same argument as USO above with the 5 in a row.



A "tiny bit" which turns out to be quite a lot, one being in the 300's and the other in the 200's.



Yet another "tiny bit"? Why don't you do your percentage trick with their respective WTF wins?



Yep. Now, let's see what you conveniently left out...
- RG
- AO
- M1000's
- Other tournaments
- Clay

I'm not even going to touch their respective streaks, especially in slams, or this is going to get ugly. Oh, and I almost forgot the most important stuff according to the VB:
- H2H
- Strength of competition

So, let's recap--Sampras is:
- trailing at the AO and WTF
- tied at Wimbledon and the USO (for now), but doesn't get such impressive streaks of dominance
- not even on the scoreboard at RG
- trailing (by a mile) in Masters
- trailing in overall tournament wons
- not even a factor on clay

All of that against a much weaker field than Federer, and you can't even parade the H2H, as he lost their only match, on his favourite surface, where he had won the four previous years. (Yeah, that's a 100% loss percentage, as you seem to love them, and don't forget that he lost to a "teenage" Federer, yet another important distinction for VB.)

So, tell us how they should be in the same tier, again?

It's funny how Fa-rds are mad every time Sampras' name is brought up. I still don't see how Federer is way ahead of Sampras given the real difference between the two which really matters is just 3 slams. Federer has the advantage of being able to play on clay and he still could win only 3 more than Sampras? Let's not even go into the pathetic competition that Fed had the luxury of playing in 2003-2007. I'd say Federer's career has been a failure compared to the expectations.

 

[Chanwan]

It's funny how Fa-rds are mad every time Sampras' name is brought up. I still don't see how Federer is way ahead of Sampras given the real difference between the two which really matters is just 3 slams. Federer has the advantage of being able to play on clay and he still could win only 3 more than Sampras? Let's not even go into the pathetic competition that Fed had the luxury of playing in 2003-2007. I'd say Federer's career has been a failure compared to the expectations.

You sir (or madame?) are too funny.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

It's funny how Fa-rds are mad every time Sampras' name is brought up. I still don't see how Federer is way ahead of Sampras given the real difference between the two which really matters is just 3 slams. Federer has the advantage of being able to play on clay and he still could win only 3 more than Sampras? Let's not even go into the pathetic competition that Fed had the luxury of playing in 2003-2007. I'd say Federer's career has been a failure compared to the expectations.

Very good point. Also Davydenko should be in the discussion more. After all, he only has a 3 slams less than Gustavo Kuerten, and the over achievements of Kuerten don't really matter as your explained so. So they are also about equal.

Kuerten himself is equal to Becker and Edberg. He has only 3 slams less than them, and they were strong on two surfaces, not only one, so they should have been able to win more. Their other achievements don't count.

Now we have seen that having 3 less slams than someone doesn't make much difference, they are equal. So having only 2 slam less than someone make you better than him. Edberg and Becker are better than Lendl, Connors and Agassi.

Lendl, Connors and Agassi have 3 less slams than Borg, so they are his equal. Borg as 3 less slams than Sampras, so he is his equal. You proved that Sampras is the equal (at least) of Federer. So Lendl, Connors and Agassi are the equals of Federer.

Edberg and Becker are better than Lendl, Connors and Agassi, who are the equals of Federer, so Edberg and Becker are better than Federer.

Now Davydenko is the equal of Kuerten, who is the equal of Edberg and Becker, who are better than Federer.

I don't have a slam just like Davydenko, and I'm therefor his equal, and I'm the equal as well of Kuerten, Becker and Edberg, and I'm of course better than Federer.

What is a slam difference?

 

[6-3 6-0]

It's funny how Fa-rds are mad every time Sampras' name is brought up. I still don't see how Federer is way ahead of Sampras given the real difference between the two which really matters is just 3 slams. Federer has the advantage of being able to play on clay and he still could win only 3 more than Sampras? Let's not even go into the pathetic competition that Fed had the luxury of playing in 2003-2007. I'd say Federer's career has been a failure compared to the expectations.

LOL! I doubt if this guy has a working brain. Kindly excuse his BS :lol: :lol:

 

[helloworld]

Very good point. Also Davydenko should be in the discussion more. After all, he only has a 3 slams less than Gustavo Kuerten, and the over achievements of Kuerten don't really matter as your explained so. So they are also about equal.

Kuerten himself is equal to Becker and Edberg. He has only 3 slams less than them, and they were strong on two surfaces, not only one, so they should have been able to win more. Their other achievements don't count.

Now we have seen that having 3 less slams than someone doesn't make much difference, they are equal. So having only 2 slam less than someone make you better than him. Edberg and Becker are better than Lendl, Connors and Agassi.

Lendl, Connors and Agassi have 3 less slams than Borg, so they are his equal. Borg as 3 less slams than Sampras, so he is his equal. You proved that Sampras is the equal (at least) of Federer. So Lendl, Connors and Agassi are the equals of Federer.

Edberg and Becker are better than Lendl, Connors and Agassi, who are the equals of Federer, so Edberg and Becker are better than Federer.

Now Davydenko is the equal of Kuerten, who is the equal of Edberg and Becker, who are better than Federer.

I don't have a slam just like Davydenko, and I'm therefor his equal, and I'm the equal as well of Kuerten, Becker and Edberg, and I'm of course better than Federer.

What is a slam difference?

You have to take into account that we are comparing tier 1 double digit slam winners here. 3 slams to Federer and Sampras is only 15-20% of their total achievement. So having 15-20% edge over another is almost negligible. The Davydenko comparison is stupid. 3 times 0 is still 0. Haven't you learn simple math in your elementary school classes? You need at least 1 slam to make the discussion mean something.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

You have to take into account that we are comparing tier 1 double digit slam winners here. 3 slams to Federer and Sampras is only 15-20% of their total achievement. So having 15-20% edge over another is almost negligible. The Davydenko comparison is stupid. 3 times 0 is still 0. Haven't you learn simple math in your elementary school classes? You need at least 1 slam to make the discussion mean something.

Ok so change the name in my glorious essay and replace Davydenko with Gaudio, Kuerten with Courier, Edberg with McEnroe, and so on.

My point is that it bothers me when people think that even 1 slam is negligible, or one more WTF is negligible. You don't realize how hard it is to get this last victory in a slam, when you are not at the top anymore.

I'm more impressed with Sampras 2002 US Open title that with any of his title of the 94-96 period. This last USO was very hard to get. If Nadal never win another slam, this slam will makes the difference between the two of them. Because when a player is not dominant anymore, winning these event is amazing. Much more than when they are dominant. And by definition the last few slams won are won at the dawn of a player's dominant years.

 

[6-3 6-0]

You have to take into account that we are comparing tier 1 double digit slam winners here. 3 slams to Federer and Sampras is only 15-20% of their total achievement. So having 15-20% edge over another is almost negligible. The Davydenko comparison is stupid. 3 times 0 is still 0. Haven't you learn simple math in your elementary school classes? You need at least 1 slam to make the discussion mean something.

14 slams - 17 slams = Negligible (LMAO)
2 AO - 4 AO = 2x
0 RG - 1 RG = Infinite times :lol:

 

[NatF]

Are you satisfied if I say Federer needs to win 42 slams to equal Sampras when making the comparison between Federer and Sampras? :shock:

Another gem from helloworld.

It's a pity I'm only a f-a-r-d otherwise I'm sure this would seem totally reasonable :lol:

 

[helloworld]

14 slams - 17 slams = Negligible (LMAO)
2 AO - 4 AO = 2x
0 RG - 1 RG = Infinite times :lol:

Nobody is discussing about Federer vs Sampras on clay here. Everyone knows Federer is better than Sampras on clay, period. AO is debatable. During the early 90s, AO was not really a serious slam as even Agassi the AO GOAT skipped AO during the entire early 90s. So it's hard to compare when the value of AO is substantially different from today. We can definitely compare Wimbledon and US Open as these two majors are the two most prestigious in both eras. Unfortunately, both men are tied in these two majors, so it is still very very difficult to compare. Again, Federer is wayy better than Sampras? Dream on, Fa-Rds.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

Hypotheticals again. If we go down this route, how many French Open titles might Kuerten have won without his hip problems?

Kuerten would certainly have achieved much more without his injuries, not only at RG but also in the clay M1000 and on hard court. Bt still, Kuerten wasn't cleaning the field like Nadal (and in a lesser extent Federer) have been doing.

In 97 he lost 8 sets in road to the title (granted, he had to go through Kafelnikov, Medvedev, Muster, Bruguera!).
In 2000, he lost 6 sets. Then again, he had some tough opponents with Kafelnikov, emerging Ferrero.
In 2001, he lost 5 sets, including 2 against Russel.
19 sets in 3 titles. So Kuerten was vulnerable to a lot of players. Some of them were top players of the 90's, some of them where nobodies. I can see a healthy Kuerten losing against Ferrero, Costa or Coria in the early 2000's. Or someone else.

Now Nadal lost 3 sets in 2005, against Grosjean, Federer, Puerta.
3 sets again in 2006 (Federer, Hewitt, Mathieu).
1 set in 2007 (Federer).
0 set in 2008.
0 set in 2010.
3 set in 2011 (Isner and Federer)
1 set in 2012 (Djokovic).
4 sets in 2013 (Djokovic, Brands, Klizan).
12 sets in 8 titles. 7 of his lost sets came from Federer or Djokovic.

I should do the same for Federer but really outside his nemesis Nadal, no one was going to beat him in 2006-2007, and he would be a very very strong contender in 2005, 2008, 2011.

 

[merlinpinpin]

Nobody is discussing about Federer vs Sampras on clay here. Everyone knows Federer is better than Sampras on clay, period. AO is debatable. During the early 90s, AO was not really a serious slam as even Agassi the AO GOAT skipped AO during the entire early 90s. So it's hard to compare when the value of AO is substantially different from today. We can definitely compare Wimbledon and US Open as these two majors are the two most prestigious in both eras. Unfortunately, both men are tied in these two majors, so it is still very very difficult to compare. Again, Federer is wayy better than Sampras? Dream on, Fa-Rds.

The part in bold is priceless. Let me guess, AO became a serious slam since 2009, right? (And maybe it has fallen back into oblivion again since 2010, too.)

You should write books with what you don't know about tennis. Really. There is at least enough material here for a big, meaty series a la Wheel of Time, maybe even more...

 

[helloworld]

Kuerten would certainly have achieved much more without his injuries, not only at RG but also in the clay M1000 and on hard court. Bt still, Kuerten wasn't cleaning the field like Nadal (and in a lesser extent Federer) have been doing.

In 97 he lost 8 sets in road to the title (granted, he had to go through Kafelnikov, Medvedev, Muster, Bruguera!).
In 2000, he lost 6 sets. Then again, he had some tough opponents with Kafelnikov, emerging Ferrero.
In 2001, he lost 5 sets, including 2 against Russel.
19 sets in 3 titles. So Kuerten was vulnerable to a lot of players. Some of them were top players of the 90's, some of them where nobodies. I can see a healthy Kuerten losing against Ferrero, Costa or Coria in the early 2000's. Or someone else.

Now Nadal lost 3 sets in 2005, against Grosjean, Federer, Puerta.
3 sets again in 2006 (Federer, Hewitt, Mathieu).
1 set in 2007 (Federer).
0 set in 2008.
0 set in 2010.
3 set in 2011 (Isner and Federer)
1 set in 2012 (Djokovic).
4 sets in 2013 (Djokovic, Brands, Klizan).
12 sets in 8 titles. 7 of his lost sets came from Federer or Djokovic.

I should do the same for Federer but really outside his nemesis Nadal, no one was going to beat him in 2006-2007, and he would be a very very strong contender in 2005, 2008, 2011.

Good hypotheticals. For me, Kuerten would have been much more competitive against Nadal on clay than Federer. His backhand is his defining strength, which Nadal cannot pick on like he does with Federer. Kuerten with no injuries probably wins 2-3 more French Opens until Nadal reach his clay peak in 2007.

 

[forehand fan]

Good hypotheticals. For me, Kuerten would have been much more competitive against Nadal on clay than Federer. His backhand is his defining strength, which Nadal cannot pick on like he does with Federer. Kuerten with no injuries probably wins 2-3 more French Opens until Nadal reach his clay peak in 2007.

i agree that kuerten would be tougher for nadal than federer,but i think i see him winning one of fo 2005 or 2006 against nadal without the injury

 

[jg153040]

Don't you understand that he only has "300% achievement" of Federer because Federer's main rival was so bloody tough?

No, he doesn't understand.

 

[helloworld]

No, he doesn't understand.

Thank you for contributing virtually nothing.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

Good hypotheticals. For me, Kuerten would have been much more competitive against Nadal on clay than Federer. His backhand is his defining strength, which Nadal cannot pick on like he does with Federer. Kuerten with no injuries probably wins 2-3 more French Opens until Nadal reach his clay peak in 2007.

You other simplify. Djokovic's backhand is not too bad either, and it still wasn't enough. Beside, I'm not sure that Kuerten could maintain a high level enough up to 2005-2006 to be a threat for Nadal. 2005-2006 is 9 years after his first slam victory. Very few players are still threat at slams after so many years.

That put aside, I agree that the injuries of Kuerten, Ferrero and Coria are certainly a big factor in the clay auras (and most importantly, success) of Federer and Nadal.

 

[Firing Forehand]

They're all triple champions and have far more success on clay than Fed.

Old Kuerten beat prime Fed in 2004 at the FO, he surely would have beaten him at his peak.

This is it.

 

[jg153040]

Thank you for contributing virtually nothing.

And telling me I'm contributing nothing is contributing something?

 

[jhhachamp]

I still don't see how Federer is way ahead of Sampras given the real difference between the two which really matters is just 3 slams.

3 slams is a huge difference.

Federer has the advantage of being able to play on clay and he still could win only 3 more than Sampras?

Federer did not have any advantages over Sampras. He was simply a better all around player than Sampras and so he was able to win more on varied surfaces.

I'd say Federer's career has been a failure compared to the expectations.

At the start of his career, no one expected him to approach Sampras' record of 14 grand slams, so his career has been a resounding success.

You have to take into account that we are comparing tier 1 double digit slam winners here. 3 slams to Federer and Sampras is only 15-20% of their total achievement. So having 15-20% edge over another is almost negligible. The Davydenko comparison is stupid. 3 times 0 is still 0.

I have already explained to you that nobody compares grand slams with percentages...they are compared in absolute numbers. 3 is better than 1 not because it is 300% of 1, but because it is 2 more than 1.

 

[jhhachamp]

During the early 90s, AO was not really a serious slam as even Agassi the AO GOAT skipped AO during the entire early 90s.

This is a pretty poor excuse. The fact that Agassi skipped the Australian Open during Sampras' prime should have made it easier for Sampras to win.

 

[TMF]

Let's see what Fed is ahead?
-Year end no#1? Nope, he's even below.
-USO titles? Nope.
-Wimbledon titles? Nope.
-Weeks at #1? Ahead by a tiny bit.
-WTF? Only by 1 tiny bit.

So Federer is wayy ahead of Sampras? Only in your dreams, Fa-Rd.

You can argue to doomsday and that will never change the fact that just about everyone agree Federer is way ahead of Sampras. In just about every stats Sampras is behind, and Federer holds the most tennis records/streaks(many at the expense of Sampras). They are separated by 1 tier.