"Roger Vs Serena" Vs "Pete Vs Steffi"

[Prabhanjan]

I have came across a few threads which compare Federer slam count to Serena slam count and his dominance versus her dominance. Many Fed bashers justify that such a comparison is meaningful and used it to devalue his accomplishments. However, this got me thinking about the previous decade where Pete faired very poorly compared with Steffi in each and every aspect. So, we should discuss here why Pete was so very average compared with Steffi:

• 
  14 vs 22 grand slams, and at no point led the GS count against Steffi like Fed over Serena. It shows absolutely no dominance over the mens field at all like Fed managed.

• 
  No Seles type competitor who took any slams away from Steffi. This one aspect shows how lucky Pete was in not having any worth while competitor. Courier/Edberg/Lendl/Becker won a whole of 1 slam once Pete started with Wimbledon in 93. Agassi won a grand total of 2 slams from 93-98 giving a free field to Pete which he could not capitalize at all.

• 
  Pete was ranked No.1 for 286 weeks against Graf's 377, nearly 100 weeks less. 6 YE NO.1 against 7 for Graf.

• 
  Way too lest career titles, and I don't have to add anything here.

• 
  Pete also lacks behind the Olympics, and almost every other aspect.

• *

So, please discuss why Pete failed miserably against Graf.


P.S. : Its a Sunday and I have absolutely no work to do, so having fun.

P.P.S. : Comparison of the men against women is always going to be silly and my apologies to all Pete fans in advance. I created this thread and did not mean it.

P.P.P.S.: For all those who devalued Fed vis-a-vis Serena, justify how Pete's performance compared with Graf.

*P.P.P.P.S: Discussion of Pete at FO in general and clay in particular is strictly prohibited :twisted:

 

[Man of steel]

Steffi had 8 YE # 1 by the way.

 

[helloworld]

What's with the comparison between ATP and WTA players? They are practically playing on different world altother. You can't say Steffi is greater than Pete because she won 22 WTA slams. I mean a junior boy slam champion can probably win 50+ slams if he gets to play on WTA tour...

 

[Colin]

Steffi > Pete
Fed > Serena

And why not ...

Clijsters > Murray
Djokovic > Henin

Now, I don't even want to get into Evert vs. Nadal on clay. :twisted:

 

[helloworld]

Steffi > Pete
Fed > Serena

And why not ...

Clijsters > Murray
Djokovic > Henin

Now, I don't even want to get into Evert vs. Nadal on clay. :twisted:

Fed's not greater than Serena. Serena has 18 slams and will probably win many more, while Fed is done winning slams.

 

[jg153040]

Fed's not greater than Serena. Serena has 18 slams and will probably win many more, while Fed is done winning slams.

Federer has much greater consistency. And more slam finals. More weeks nr.1.

And he has done this vs tougher field.

One slam can't make up for that.

 

[Deleted member 733170]

^^ two posts ago you say you can't compare and then you start comparing!?

I thought your first post was better than your second post.

 

[Prabhanjan]

If we start the comparisons based on accomplishments, we would have to more or less admit that men don't hold a candle to the ladies

Like said by somebody earlier, the ATP and WTA can't be compared. Moreover, if anybody still wants to compare them, please compare Pete with Steffi first

 

[Dedans Penthouse]

I have came across a few threads which compare Federer slam count to Serena slam count and his dominance versus her dominance.

Many Fed bashers justify that such a comparison is meaningful [size]and used it to devalue his accomplishments.

However, this got me thinking about the previous decade where Pete faired very poorly blah….blah……. compared with Steffi in each and every aspect. So, we should discuss here why Pete was so very average compared with Steffi: [/b]

Another useless fedfanboy's convoluted cherrypicking. You're convincing no one of anything. Your fellow fanboys already agree with you and those petefanboys aren't going to be swayed by this convoluted, hypothetical b.s.

*P.P.P.P.S: Discussion of Pete at FO in general and clay in particular is strictly prohibited :twisted:

That pretty much confirms your nothing-more-than-a-fanboy status and your overall douchebaggery.

 

[Prabhanjan]

Another useless fedfanboy's convoluted cherrypicking. You're convincing no one of anything. Your fellow fanboys already agree with you and those petefanboys aren't going to be swayed by this convoluted, hypothetical b.s.

That pretty much confirms your nothing-more-than-a-fanboy status and your overall douchebaggery.

If you want to be serious, go ahead and compare Pete with Steffi. Please go ahead!

 

[TMF]

If you want to be serious, go ahead and compare Pete with Steffi. Please go ahead!

Don't mind Dedans since he only attack Federer/Nole fans but not other fan base since he idolize Sampras. Do what you please.

 

[tennisaddict]

What's with the comparison between ATP and WTA players? They are practically playing on different world altother. You can't say Steffi is greater than Pete because she won 22 WTA slams. I mean a junior boy slam champion can probably win 50+ slams if he gets to play on WTA tour...

Fed's not greater than Serena. Serena has 18 slams and will probably win many more, while Fed is done winning slams.

It took 34 minutes for you to make a 180 degree change in position ?

 

[tennisaddict]

In reality, both comparisons are wrong.

If anything, we can compare the WTA GOAT Graf with ATP GOAT Fed.

Similarity :

- Both were ruthless

- Both never got tired with winning

- Both won till late in their career

- Both had 1 monster of a player to contend with (Seles and Rafa)

- Both were superior on grass

- Clay was their weakest surface

- Both got married to tennis players

Only difference is Graf won from a very early age, whereas Fed wasted time till 23.
-

 

[Man of steel]

In reality, both comparisons are wrong.

If anything, we can compare the WTA GOAT Graf with ATP GOAT Fed.

Similarity :

- Both were ruthless

- Both never got tired with winning

- Both won till late in their career

- Both had 1 monster of a player to contend with (Seles and Rafa)

- Both were superior on grass

- Clay was their weakest surface

- Both got married to tennis players

Only difference is Graf won from a very early age, whereas Fed wasted time till 23.
-

How late is late? Graf didn't win one major over at 30 did she and won 21 slams before the age of 27-28. Thats not late.
And steffi only had to deal with seles for what- 2-3 years while fed has had nadal for nearly 10 years.

 

[Chanwan]

How late is late? Graf didn't win one major over at 30 did she and won 21 slams before the age of 27-28. Thats not late.
And steffi only had to deal with seles for what- 2-3 years while fed has had nadal for nearly 10 years.

this - and congrats to the Swiss once again!

 

[punsalen]

Serena > Graf = Federer > Sampras. The ladies win this one given the choices. Laver and Gonzales or Laver and Federer would give the men a more fighting chance. Next.

 

[punsalen]

How late is late? Graf didn't win one major over at 30 did she and won 21 slams before the age of 27-28. Thats not late.
And steffi only had to deal with seles for what- 2-3 years while fed has had nadal for nearly 10 years.

Steffi was too untalented to win slams in her 30s. She knew it so retired. Her lover Gunther Graf likely offered to "fix" her problem again, but unlike depthless 93 she didn't just have 1 problem, but atleast 5- Hingis, Davenport, Venus, Serena, and so on. So it would be too much work and unlikely she would get away with it again. Serena helped retire her by as a 17 year old knock with a bad knee injury killing 29 year old Graf in the Indian Wells final. Serena has won 5 slams in her 30s and counting.

Federer has only 1 slam after age 28. Sampras won only 1 slam after age 28 as well. Like the inferior Graf, they are no Serena.

 

[punsalen]

I have came across a few threads which compare Federer slam count to Serena slam count and his dominance versus her dominance. Many Fed bashers justify that such a comparison is meaningful and used it to devalue his accomplishments. However, this got me thinking about the previous decade where Pete faired very poorly compared with Steffi in each and every aspect. So, we should discuss here why Pete was so very average compared with Steffi:

While Steffi Parche is probably superior to Sampras, much of your comparision is flawed.

• 
  14 vs 22 grand slams, and at no point led the GS count against Steffi like Fed over Serena. It shows absolutely no dominance over the mens field at all like Fed managed.

Sampras did atleast hold the official slam record for his gender with Steffi Parche even with her main rival stabbed never managed. While Sampras's official mark was a bit bogus (as even Federer's much superior mark is too) given the situation pre Open Era, when you consider the huge aid Gunther Graf gave Steffi, and she still didn't get the slam record, it probably only favors Sampras, even with his deceiving "slam record".

However if you are going to say mens slams = womens slams, then you must concede Serena > Federer already. Just FWIW.

• 
  No Seles type competitor who took any slams away from Steffi. This one aspect shows how lucky Pete was in not having any worth while competitor. Courier/Edberg/Lendl/Becker won a whole of 1 slam once Pete started with Wimbledon in 93. Agassi won a grand total of 2 slams from 93-98 giving a free field to Pete which he could not capitalize at all.

But Seles was NOT there. She was stabbed, and never the same again. So that ruins this whole point. Agassi atleast was there in 94-95. Seles never was again thanks to Gunther Graf. How can you credit Steffi for facing Seles when she did not face Seles who was removed.

• 
  Pete was ranked No.1 for 286 weeks against Graf's 377, nearly 100 weeks less. 6 YE NO.1 against 7 for Graf.

Again how many of those weeks did Gunther Graf give Steffi. Would she have even reached 286 without him? She wasn't even at 200 yet before that.

• 
  Pete also lacks behind the Olympics, and almost every other aspect.

Olympics was no big deal until atleast 2008. Some say it still isn't.


BTW comparing competition Graf had to Sampras, this is who Graf beat during her Grand slam and period winning 8 of 9 slams:

1988 Australian Open- 34 year old Chris Evert
1988 French Open- Natalia Zvereva, a 17 year old doubles specialist in her only ever slam singles final (32 minute match)
1988 Wimbledon- 32 year old Navratilova (still took 3 sets)
1988 U.S Open- Sabatini, a player who reached 18 slam semis but only 3 finals, and 1 title out of 18 semis = mental midget
1989 Australian Open- Sukova
1989 Wimbledon- 33 year old Navratilova
1989 U.S Open- again oldie Navratilova
1989 YEC- yet again the 33 year old, lol what the heck is this with a 33 year old as Steffi's opponent in every freaking final, how pathetic is this!?!
1990 Australian Open- Fernandez

Competition, pleeeaaase. Don't even get me started on her post stabbing competition.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Federer has much greater consistency. And more slam finals. More weeks nr.1.

And he has done this vs tougher field.

One slam can't make up for that.

Serena has more majors than Federer. For the accumulative value alone, she is superior. However, if Federer won the Grand Slam, it would not be a discussion, but he was never going to achieve that. On the Graf/Sampras side, she is the winner there--as one of the GOAT players to win the Grand Slam, that places her in a position far above Sampras.

 

[AngieB]

Serena has more majors than Federer. For the accumulative value alone, she is superior. However, if Federer won the Grand Slam, it would not be a discussion, but he was never going to achieve that. On the Graf/Sampras side, she is the winner there--as one of the GOAT players to win the Grand Slam, that places her in a position far above Sampras.

Here is a participant that majors in majors. The sport of tennis begins and ends at the grand slam events. You have a keen grasp on tennis history.

There are others who will attempt to major in minors and embrace smaller, insignificant career results to diminish the effect of the ITF-sanctioned grand slam events. They will drive a Dodge Dart down the often-littered Minor Highway with a low fuel gauge and no rest stop within 50 miles. They would rather risk being stranded in the middle of no where than travel along the safe confines of Major Lane in a Pink convertible Corvette.

#PTL #JC4Ever

AngieB​

 

[90's Clay]

Graf is far>>>>> All 3 and it isn't even close

 

[helloworld]

Graf is far>>>>> All 3 and it isn't even close

Let's see if Graf can win a game vs Sampras. :lol:

 

[Prabhanjan]

While Steffi Parche is probably superior to Sampras, much of your comparision is flawed.

I am aware of the inappropriateness of this comparison. It is indeed very very difficult in the ATP/ITF to win slams. Since the Wimbledon 2004, the Big 4 have leaked a grand total of 4 slams to Safin, Del Potro, Wawrinka, and Cilic. It has always been a monumental task to win a slam on this side of the slams. It is a testament to the great Pete to win 14 slams. So what if Roger got 17, Nadal 14, etc. Nothing takes away from Pete's greatness and the comparison is of course meaningless

Sampras did atleast hold the official slam record for his gender with Steffi Parche even with her main rival stabbed never managed. While Sampras's official mark was a bit bogus (as even Federer's much superior mark is too) given the situation pre Open Era, when you consider the huge aid Gunther Graf gave Steffi, and she still didn't get the slam record, it probably only favors Sampras, even with his deceiving "slam record".

I don't get the bogus part! Even if the official mark was 15 and Pete stops at 14, its a super-human effort to reach 14. However, if we still go ahead and make the ridiculous comparisons, the 22 slams at WTA must be greater than 14 at ITF, isn't it? Now, when we pool the men with women, the target for Pete must be the women's 24 slam count and not Emerson's 12, right Now with both Pete and Graf failing to reach 25, one would have to pick Graf's 22 over Pete's 14.

However if you are going to say mens slams = womens slams, then you must concede Serena > Federer already. Just FWIW.

I have no problem in conceding that. I can't be having it both ways, can I? That's the reason for this comparison of Pete with Steffi if one wants to compare Fed with Serena

But Seles was NOT there. She was stabbed, and never the same again. So that ruins this whole point. Agassi atleast was there in 94-95. Seles never was again thanks to Gunther Graf. How can you credit Steffi for facing Seles when she did not face Seles who was removed.

During 90-92, Seles won 7 of her 8 slams, with most at Graf's expense. There was no such direct competitor who took slams away from Pete. When Pete won a slam, he did it no matter what, and even when he lost it, it did not appear the Seles way.

Again how many of those weeks did Gunther Graf give Steffi. Would she have even reached 286 without him? She wasn't even at 200 yet before that.

Would Pete have reached 286 with a Seles kind of competitor?

Olympics was no big deal until atleast 2008. Some say it still isn't.

The problem is the Olympics comparison arises because of Serena. It Serena winning a Gold can be used as an advantage against Fed, so can be Graf's winning it against Pete. Its ridiculous, but you have to bear with me.

BTW comparing competition Graf had to Sampras, this is who Graf beat during her Grand slam and period winning 8 of 9 slams:
1988 Australian Open- 34 year old Chris Evert
1988 French Open- Natalia Zvereva, a 17 year old doubles specialist in her only ever slam singles final (32 minute match)
1988 Wimbledon- 32 year old Navratilova (still took 3 sets)
1988 U.S Open- Sabatini, a player who reached 18 slam semis but only 3 finals, and 1 title out of 18 semis = mental midget
1989 Australian Open- Sukova
1989 Wimbledon- 33 year old Navratilova
1989 U.S Open- again oldie Navratilova
1989 YEC- yet again the 33 year old, lol what the heck is this with a 33 year old as Steffi's opponent in every freaking final, how pathetic is this!?!
1990 Australian Open- Fernandez

A similar list of average competition exists for Pete too. Edberg/Courier/Lendl/Becker, and none of them had sharpness/primeness post 1993. A mental midget Goran, I-play-but-don't-care-about-tennis Agassi, et. al. Who was really a competitor taking away the slams from Pete during 93-98? Most of the lost slams were on account of Pete not trying too hard than somebody really taking it away from him. According to some fans here, a bunny does not qualify as a competitor, and so is Agassi for Sampras, isn't it?

Competition, pleeeaaase. Don't even get me started on her post stabbing competition.

Stabbing or no stabbing, Pete never had a worthy rival taking away his slams. Many argue that if Pete was healthy during 99 USO, he would have won it and not Agassi which would have left him a 1-slam wonder in 3-out-of-4 slams. So where is that slam-taking-away rival for Pete?

 

[TMF]

Serena has more majors than Federer. For the accumulative value alone, she is superior. However, if Federer won the Grand Slam, it would not be a discussion, but he was never going to achieve that. On the Graf/Sampras side, she is the winner there--as one of the GOAT players to win the Grand Slam, that places her in a position far above Sampras.

Serena has more slam than Federer in a 3-set format, but Federer has more slam than Serena in a 5-set format. Big difference.

 

[Prabhanjan]

Steffi was too untalented to win slams in her 30s. She knew it so retired. Her lover Gunther Graf likely offered to "fix" her problem again, but unlike depthless 93 she didn't just have 1 problem, but atleast 5- Hingis, Davenport, Venus, Serena, and so on. So it would be too much work and unlikely she would get away with it again. Serena helped retire her by as a 17 year old knock with a bad knee injury killing 29 year old Graf in the Indian Wells final. Serena has won 5 slams in her 30s and counting.

Federer has only 1 slam after age 28. Sampras won only 1 slam after age 28 as well. Like the inferior Graf, they are no Serena.

I will not agree with this. When you have or almost have the slam record, it does not matter how old/young you are. She had a grand total of 22 slams and she started winning nearly 12 years earlier and definitely needed the retirement badly. It is similar to Pete in 2002. And no, of the 5, only Venus and Serena would have been long-term problems and Hingis did not win a slam post Graf FO. For the skill set of Graf, Davenport is not a long-term problem,a dn she would have have solved most of these types of player had she been a few years younger. And as great as Serena looks now, she is more making up for the lost years and injuries and if she had reached the current slam count or 20 before turning 30 years, she would have as well considered retirement.