Sampras 14 slams 12 yrs, Federer 9 slams 4 yrs

Quite stunned that Kuerten does not have better then a 70% winning record on clay, but then again his prime was shortened by his chronic hip ailments, and probably racked up alot of losses since then. Kafelnikov's clay court record is terrable for a French Open winner, but then again I find him an unbelievably weak 2-time slam winner, he never even won a Masters title in his career, I cant believe anyone thinks he was an underachiever. He isnt even really a clay courter so it amazing he won the French Open, the only times he looked like an elite clay courter was when he played Kuerten. Some of the others probably had their record skewed by their later years when they were past their primes and not as good anymore, which Federer has not reached yet.
 
Bassus said:
I agree. I think if he had won in Rome, he would have been in a better place mentally at Roland Garros, and would not have faded so quickly once he blew that service game early in the second when he was up 40-0. Maybe then he wins the second set, and then the match.
Yeah he would have been in so much better a frame of mind playing Nadal on clay after a big win in a Masters final, and not paniced so quickly at the first sign of trouble in that French final.
 

Jack the Hack

Hall of Fame
justineheninhoogenbandfan said:
Some of the others probably had their record skewed by their later years when they were past their primes and not as good anymore, which Federer has not reached yet.
But you might also say that Federer's record is skewed by his early years on tour considering he is winning at an 87% rate on clay in the past 3 years.

justineheninhoogenbandfan said:
Yeah he would have been in so much better a frame of mind playing Nadal on clay after a big win in a Masters final, and not paniced so quickly at the first sign of trouble in that French final.
When you first mentioned this, I wasn't sure I bought into the theory because I don't think that players like Federer (who have played thousands of matches in their lifetime) really obsess that much over one loss. However, there is no doubt that Federer panicked in the French final when Nadal started his comeback. Wilander made those over-the-top comments that Federer lacked balls in the match, but the fact was that he abandoned the gameplan that he had been working on with Roche and that had brought him match point against Nadal in Rome. Instead of hitting those short slices to Nadal's backhand and attacking the net at judicious moments, Federer moved way behind the baseline and tried to outhit Nadal with topspin shots. It was kind a bizarre to watch because you just knew that it wasn't going to work unless Nadal himself started to choke. I originally thought that it was just the pressure of winning his 4th major in a row (a "Roger Slam") and completing the career Grand Slam that got to Federer, but I guess it's possible that lingering memories of failure against Nadal from Rome made him freeze up and forget what he was supposed to be doing.
 

fastdunn

Legend
Sampras was able to cruise as #1 for many years because
he had Wimbledon, indoor court seasons, his serve and forehand.
Even if young and up coming players were beating him on hard courts,
he had Wimbledon and fast indoor seasons ?


How about Federer ? If someone starts to beat him on hard courts,
Wimbledon is not so safe any more since it's now play like hard courts.

Sampras still had serves even if his footwork slowed a bit.
How about Federer ? His entire game hinges on footwork.

IMHO, Federer starts go down, he would go down faster.

Of course, if he stays unbeatable 3 or more years,
game will be over by then. He surely will become the G.O.A.T
probably surpassing 15 slams and maybe FO....
 

Zaragoza

Banned
I think it´s more accurate to say Sampras had won 8 GS at 25 while Federer won 9.
Sampras won his first GS at 19 (almost 3 years earlier than Fed), that´s not Sampras fault.
 

AJK1

Hall of Fame
I don't think how old someone is when they start winning slams makes much difference, seems Federer's mind clicked in and the rest is becoming history.
 

whistleway

Semi-Pro
oberyn said:
Here's how the "weak competition argument" turns into a non-starter.

1. Federer isn't as good as he seems. Why not? B/c the competition is weak.

2. How can his competition prove they're not weak? Simple. They need to start beating Federer.

Conclusion: The only way for Federer to really prove his greatness is by losing more frequently.

Um, o.k. . . .
nice work !!
 

whistleway

Semi-Pro
oberyn said:
To try to put this in perspective, I will label their slams, etc. AT THE TIME OF THE RESPECTIVE END-OF-YEAR RANKINGS.

1985:

1 Lendl, Ivan (TCH) -- 2 slams (1 FO, 1 USO)
2 McEnroe, John (USA) 7 slams (3 Wimbledon, 4 USO)
3 Wilander, Mats (SWE) 3 slams (2 AO, 1 FO)
4 Connors, Jimmy (USA) 8 slams (1 AO, 2 Wimbledon, 5 USO)
5 Edberg, Stefan (SWE) 1 slam (1 AO)
6 Becker, Boris (GER) 1 slam (1 Wimbledon)
7 Noah, Yannick (FRA) 1 slam (1 FO)
8 Järryd, Anders (SWE) 0 slams
9 Mecir, Miloslav (TCH) 0 slams (didn't make first finals appearance until following year)
total = 23 slams by 7 players.

1990:

1 Edberg, Stefan (SWE) 4 slams (2 AO, 2 Wimbledon)
2 Becker, Boris (GER) 4 slams (3 Wimbledon, 1 USO)
3 Lendl, Ivan (TCH) 8 slams (2 AO, 3 FO, 3 USO)
4 Agassi, Andre (USA) 0 slams
5 Sampras, Pete (USA) 1 slam (1 USO)
6 Gomez, Andres (ECU) 1 slam (1 FO)
7 Muster, Thomas (AUT) 0 slams
8 Sanchez, Emilio (ESP) 0 slams
9 Ivanisevic, Goran (YUG) 0 slams
10 Gilbert, Brad (USA) 0 slams

total = 18 slams by 5 players

1995:

1 SAMPRAS, PETE 7 slams (1 AO, 3 Wimbledon, 3 USO)
2 AGASSI, ANDRE 3 slams (1 AO, 1 Wimbledon, 1 USO)
3 MUSTER, THOMAS 1 slam (1 FO)
4 BECKER, BORIS 5 slams (1 AO, 3 Wimbledon, 1 USO)
5 CHANG, MICHAEL 1 slam (1 FO)
6 KAFELNIKOV, YEVGENY 0 slams
7 ENQVIST, THOMAS 0 slams
8 COURIER, JIM 4 slams (2 AO, 2 FO)
9 FERREIRA, WAYNE 0 slams
10 IVANISEVIC, GORAN 0 slams

total = 21 slams by 6 players

2000:

1 Kuerten, Gustavo 2 slams (2 FO)
2 Safin, Marat 1 slam (1 USO)
3 Sampras, Pete 13 slams (2 AO, 7 Wimbledon, 4 USO)
4 Norman, Magnus 0 slams
5 Kafelnikov, Yevgeny 2 slams (1 FO, 1 AO)
6 Agassi, Andre 6 slams (2 AO, 1 FO, 1 Wimbledon, 2 USO)
7 Hewitt, Lleyton 0 slams
8 Corretja, Alex 0 slams
9 Enqvist, Thomas 0 slams
10 Henman, Tim 0 slams

total = 24 slams by 5 players

2005:

1 Federer, Roger 6 slams (1 AO, 3 Wimbledon, 2 USO)
2 Nadal, Rafael 1 slam (1 FO)
3 Roddick, Andy 1 slam (1 USO)
4 Hewitt, Lleyton 2 slams (1 Wimbledon, 1 USO)
5 Davydenko, Nikolay 0 slams
6 Nalbandian, David 0 slams
7 Agassi, Andre 8 slams (4 AO, 1 FO, 1 Wimbledon, 2 USO)
8 Coria, Guillermo 0 slams
9 Ljubicic, Ivan 0 slams
10 Gaudio, Gaston 1 slam (1 FO)

total = 19 slams by 6 players (change it to 21 by 7 players if Safin weren't a complete flake)

I think that people take a snapshot of one of these years, like 1985, and go "Look at all the hall-of-famers" without recognizing that these guys were not all at identical points in their career. Some were on the upswing, others were on the downswing. 10 years from now we might look at 2006 the same way and say "Look, Federer had to compete against all those hall-of-fame caliber players."
Sweet work! Any one with logic would know that evolution always happen in sports. Wait for a few years and you would see HOFers in that list who are currently playing.

I don't want to waste time disputing who's best. Let me put it this way: I am glad I get to watch Federer live and on TV. So much more than I was when Sampras was playing. And that's all that matters to me.
 

AJK1

Hall of Fame
Yes, i'd rather watch Federer than Sampras any day, closely followed by McEnroe, who was the all-round GOAT (singles and doubles) in my opinion.
 
driger said:
might be more accurate if you used feds current age instead. how many slams did pete have by feds current age,25?
That's the worst way to compare them.

Federer has hit his groove and won all these slams in an unbelievable amount of time. Comparing them by age seems like a way to justify Sampras being as dominent as Federer and that's simply just not true!
 

prosealster

Professional
fastdunn said:
Sampras was able to cruise as #1 for many years because
he had Wimbledon, indoor court seasons, his serve and forehand.
Even if young and up coming players were beating him on hard courts,
he had Wimbledon and fast indoor seasons ?


How about Federer ? If someone starts to beat him on hard courts,
Wimbledon is not so safe any more since it's now play like hard courts.

Sampras still had serves even if his footwork slowed a bit.
How about Federer ? His entire game hinges on footwork.

IMHO, Federer starts go down, he would go down faster.

Of course, if he stays unbeatable 3 or more years,
game will be over by then. He surely will become the G.O.A.T
probably surpassing 15 slams and maybe FO....
I agree....When Fed starts to go down... he would go down faster..
 

Ten_is

Rookie
found on tennisweek.com

"When I look at Roger, I'm a fan," Sampras said. "I mean, I'm a fan of how he plays, what he's about, just the fact that I think he's a class — I don't know him personally — but seems like he's a class guy on and off the court. He's fun to watch. Just his athletic ability, what he's able to do on the run. I think he can and will break every tennis record out there. I just think he's the only really great player I see playing. I think Nadal is really good and he's a great player, but I just think there's less of him. Today I think Roger is two, three levels above the rest. The fact that he seems like he's even getting better. You combine all that, I don't really see anyone threatening the No. 1 ranking. I think he's just too consistent and too good and has a fear factor in everyone else that I had at times, but I think he has it even more."
 

chaognosis

Semi-Pro
The level of achievement Federer has maintained over the past three years has been nothing short of extraordinary. Comparing it, for example, to the best three-year period of Sampras's career (1993-95), Federer has won ten more titles, including two more majors. Also, the win-loss percentages show that Sampras lost matches about twice as frequently as Federer does. No player in the Open Era has been so solid for so long -- Lendl perhaps came closest from 1985-87, but won only five majors during that time. Connors may also have approached Federer's level of consistency in the mid-1970s, though without the success in majors, largely because he did not regularly compete at the Australian and French Open. All in all, I think we are witnessing in Federer arguably the best all-around, day-in/day-out player since Rod Laver, and one who has already earned his place alongside the all-time greats.
 

Zuras

Banned
Even though they are play different styles, it's interesting to compare the two:

Both were talented but were generally considered "chokers" in their early years.
Both started to massively dominate tennis on the fast surfaces.
Both had to make some significant changes to their games, specifically their backhands (Sampras completely changed his backhand to be better on grass; Roger has been trying to improve his for as long as it's been attacked by smart players.)
Both of their weakest surfaces is clay, though it was a much greater handicap for Sampras who was terrible on it(sorry, pete:) ).
Both had a very cool, calm demeanors on the court and rarely showed any emotion.
Both had killer incredible forehands.
Both of their first names end in "er". :p
 

lenbo01

New User
i guess when federer wins the french open next year all you sampras lovers can shut up about pete being the best ever. pete was great on fast courts, but was allergic to the red clay of europe. i say they're equal on hard and grass, they play on each surface 10 times each would win five. on clay though, i bet federer would at least 8 out of 10 times. sampras could never figure out how to play on the dirt.
 
L

laurie

Guest
The title of the thread doesn't acknowledge two things:

1. Sampras played 18 slam finals in 12 years, 1 less than Lendl

2. By Wimbledon 1997 Sampras had 10 slams at the age of 25.

We shouldn't assume Federer will win all the slams next year. The records between them are still almost identical at the same age despite Federer's dominance. Both have around 43 titles at the same age and both have around the same number of weeks at number 1. Sampras was number 1 in 1997 for the entire year and won 10 titles so Federer cannot pull away on that score.

The stats are still tight for Federer.
 

Zuras

Banned
Federer came into his pime and started to dominate in 2004, and from then until now we have seen him win: 8 grand slam events and 12 ATP master's.

Sampras came into his prime and started to dominate in 1993, and in the same amount of time he won: 6 grand slam events and 8 ATP master's.

This is pretty good evidence that Federer, barring injury, will totally destroy Sampras on a statistical level, not even considering Federer has a decent chance at winning an FO in the next year or two.
 
L

laurie

Guest
Wrong, Sampras won 7 slams between 1993 and 1996 and played in 8 finals. Sampras won a slam in 1990 and lost a final in 1992.
 
L

laurie

Guest
Like all empires, it crumbles eventually.

By end 1997, no-one would have predicted Sampras would only win 4 more slams in the rest of his career. I remember when he won the Aussie Open in January 1997, the commentators were predicting all sorts of figures.

Federer will slow down, it's a question of when. How many of the real significant records can he break before he slows down considerably.
 

Zuras

Banned
Wrong, Sampras won 7 slams between 1993 and 1996 and played in 8 finals. Sampras won a slam in 1990 and lost a final in 1992.
1993 is one year, 1994 is one year, 1995 is one year

2004 is one year, 2005 is one year, 2006 is one year.

Do you know how to count?
 
L

laurie

Guest
1993 is one year, 1994 is one year, 1995 is one year

2004 is one year, 2005 is one year, 2006 is one year.

Do you know how to count?
Ok smartass, why did you mention 1993 for Sampras? From 1993 to 1996 he won 7 slams. You should have said 1994 to 1996.

You should make yourself clearer in the point you're trying to make.
 
L

laurie

Guest
Having said that, 1996 is an irrelevance. Sampras' best years for slams were 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1997.
 

Zuras

Banned
Ok smartass, why did you mention 1993 for Sampras? From 1993 to 1996 he won 7 slams. You should have said 1994 to 1996.

You should make yourself clearer in the point you're trying to make.
Why don't you just reread my post really slow and make much use of your fingers to confirm things.
 
L

laurie

Guest
Ok, I've counted and I got 6! Wow, those maths lessons paid off in the end.
 

OrangeOne

Legend
Or Federer's the best player that we've seen, which is why his competition can't beat him.

Here's how the "weak competition argument" turns into a non-starter.

1. Federer isn't as good as he seems. Why not? B/c the competition is weak.

2. How can his competition prove they're not weak? Simple. They need to start beating Federer.

Conclusion: The only way for Federer to really prove his greatness is by losing more frequently.

Um, o.k. . . .
I almost feel like wondering if this can be 'stickied'! It seems it needs explaining to *someone* every day or three...

Very, very well explained, by the way. Now if only the people who read it have some sound basic logic skills.
 
^^^Not really.

You compare them to the field of Sampras' time, not to their winning (or inability to win) against Federer.

If Fed starts losing to today's comp, I figure it'll most likely be due more to the fact that he's declined and not because the current crop has improved and evolved. I doubt that'll happen. I don't see it. The next player/s to have success in overcoming Fed will probably come from the next generation. Not todays.
 

OrangeOne

Legend
^^^Not really.

You compare them to the field of Sampras' time, not to their winning (or inability to win) against Federer.

If Fed starts losing to today's comp, I figure it'll most likely be due more to the fact that he's declined and not because the current crop has improved and evolved. I doubt that'll happen. I don't see it. The next player/s to have success in overcoming Fed will probably come from the next generation. Not todays.
Why not? I give you, for example, Pat Rafter. A bit of a journeyman for the first 1/2 of his career, won only 1 title in 5 years prior to 1997 (by which time he was already 24) - and in that year made the FO Semis and Won the US. From 1997 onwards, he was a genuine slam contender, and often troubled many players. Won the US again the following year, Finals of Wimbledon 2000 & 2001, and a genuine slam-contender from 1997 onwards.

Just goes to prove that anyone can come from the 'regular' to the 'exceptional', sometimes without too much warning (I don't think 1 title, in Rafter's case, was too much warning). For me, I'm excited to watch players Baghdatis next year. If Paradorn can play like his last match against Federer, he can beat any player on the planet (2 points in a 3rd set tie-breaker mean nothing). Sometimes all it takes is a good player, who maybe gets some better advice, and has a few confidence-building wins.....
 

DashaandSafin

Hall of Fame
Whatever. All you idiots need to understand is the next generation will be faster, bigger, stronger than the one before. All you old timers need to wake up. You think Laver could return Roddick's serve? It would tear him a new *******.
 

krprunitennis2

Professional
Okay...let's hope that Nadal would catch up to Federer first by the number of Slams won then see to it that they both have a fierce competition for slams. =) Is that much better?
 

isbisthebest

New User
Okay...let's hope that Nadal would catch up to Federer first by the number of Slams won then see to it that they both have a fierce competition for slams. =) Is that much better?
i don't think nadal will win more than 4 grand slams. his style of play is just too aggressive and easy to get hurt. and it also requires a lot of energy and absolute concentration. nadal won't be able to keep up with this kind of level of play for long. on the other hand, federer's style is quite energy saving. i say that the difference between federer and nadal's grand slam numbers are yet to widen.
 
Top