Your post is ridiculous on so many levels I'll just let it go, it would take me an hour to point out every flaw in your reasoning.70% of the time? He was gone for one year.
He didn't face any because he stopped them all from becoming them. Agassi easily could have had more than 10, Pete stopped Becker from winning possibly 3 Wimbledons, Pete stopped Courier from winning at least 2, possibly 3 majors. Once these guys get those slams, they keep getting more. This is as impressive as the inflated slam count of the big 3 era since careers were at least 5 years shorter.
PLEASE. Sampras had 14, Agassi had 8 and then you have to go back to the Edberg/Becker era to find someone with more than 4 Slams.PETE made sure no one was winning more slams than him so his rivals were kept at bay by the Great PETE.
Sampras' 6 were in a row which is a huge deal since ending YE#1 was basically considered the most important achievement in a season since the start of the Open era. Only recently has being #1 throughout the year had equal or greater importance.Sampras 6 Times ended as year end 1 while Federer only ended 5 times.
On the other hand, Federer rarely lost early in majors. He didn't have many losses in majors like the ones that Sampras had to Yzaga, Schaller, Philippoussis, Norman, Korda, Kucera, Delgado etc. Federer rarely had a loss like when Seppi beat him at the 2015 Australian Open, or Stakhovsky at 2013 Wimbledon.I think the reason that Sampras is considered mentally tougher is due to his record in grand slam finals (he rarely lost them) and his extremely dominant record against all of his rivals.
It's funny to think that Yzaga was 2-0 at the US Open against Sampras.On the other hand, Federer rarely lost early in majors. He didn't have many losses in majors like the ones that Sampras had to Yzaga, Schaller, Philippoussis, Norman, Korda, Kucera, Delgado etc. Federer rarely had a loss like when Seppi beat him at the 2015 Australian Open, or Stakhovsky at 2013 Wimbledon.
They are 2-2 in US Open matches. Yzaga won in 1988 and 1994, Sampras won in 1989 and 1995.It's funny to think that Yzaga was 2-0 at the US Open against Sampras.
Heh, nothing could be more literary and poetic than the ole "weak era" that, ironically, is like a religious experience of revelation for the metrics brigade around here. It's almost like you want to -Was Jonathan also tyrannized by the metrics of prose and literary standards?
But facing older Djokovic while a decade younger is not the same as facing a young Federer while a decade older.Based on matches they played, it's foolish to say Djokovic is in different league than Zverev and Tsitsipas, because they kept pace pretty well and beat him on a number occasions. But you know well that Novak is in different league than them and that taking a set or two here and there doesn't mean much in tennis. Same like any of the big 3 are in different league compared to Agassi, Becker, Wilander, etc. How is that even controversial?
Nobody said Federer was bad. Fed winning 2 more slams at 35+ speaks a lot about this era more than anything else.Of course he wasn't, just like everyone else is different in a number of ways (not all detrimental) at more advanced age. Though Federer amassed 2 slams as soon as Novak was out of the picture, at tender age of 37, so he was still pretty good. The fact that there was someone better than him doesn't mean Federer was bad.
Fed was 15/20 when he won his first 15 so not that much of a difference. Up till 2012 Wimbledon he'd be 16/19 if we don't include the FO since PETE never made to the FO finals.Samparas has won 14 of the 18 finals he ever played to Federer's 20 out of 31, so it has to do with that, but to Federer's defense, he didn't have to play some random top players in all those slam finals, like Federer had to, so there's that! Sampras' competition most of the time was laughable...so it was easier to dominate! None of those 90's top players were anywhere nearly as mentally tough as Djokovic and Nadal and even Murray to a certain extent...Todd Martin, Cedric Pioline, servebot Ivanisevic as your final grand slam opponent...yikes...they were giving up before anything even started, Sampras didn't even have to put any effort, they were just giving up! LOL
Andre (20-14), Becker (12-7), Edberg (8-6), Courier (16-4), and a slew of slam champions and dark horses who could take anyone out on their day. As opposed to the Baghdatises and Nalbandians that Fed built his empire on.What rivals?
I am somewhat half-kidding. Human experience can't be boiled down to numbers and stats. It's just when you write a thread lamenting the tyranny of metrics on a player who has been propped up like no other in large part due to his metrics that we all have a hearty chuckle.Heh, nothing could be more literary and poetic than the ole "weak era" that, ironically, is like a religious experience of revelation for the metrics brigade around here. It's almost like you want to -
Minor mono like his wears off after 6 weeks, c'mon now how many decades are we going to milk this excuse for? His failure to hold down Nadal is why he lost the keys to the kingdom.Mono prevented Federer from doing 6 in 6, plus the fact that Nadal being extremely dominant in the clay court season every year helped unlike Agassi who was inconsistent every year except 1995, Sampras was 1 yr younger than Agassi while Federer was 5 years older to Nadal.
Sampras has 6 Years End number 1, one more than Federer.PLEASE. Sampras had 14, Agassi had 8 and then you have to go back to the Edberg/Becker era to find someone with more than 4 Slams.
Federer has 20 = almost as many as Sampras and Agassi put together AND he faced two other players who will end up with more than 20 Slams each. How the hell is this even comparable? Sampras stopped nobody from nothing, he stopped guys like Ivanisevic and Henman from winning Wimbledon, he stopped Agassi from winning maybe 2-3 more US Opens AND THAT'S IT.
Agassi and Sampras played a total of 9 times in the Slams in their careers. Federer faced Nadal 14 times in the Slams and Djokovic 17 times for a total of 31 times. I honestly don't know how anyone can make an argument at this point. Without Agassi Sampras wins maybe 3 more Slams. Without Nadal and Djokovic Federer probably retires at 25 out of boredom, but could easily end in the 30 to 40 range if he commited to every tournament and played until 38/39.
There is absolutely nothing that Sampras has over Federer at this point. Sampras won a lot less, had it a lot easier (apart from 1995 Agassi didn't even fully commit to the game until he was 29 years old), played on surfaces that suited his game a lot more. Let Sampras play someone like Djokovic on slow hard or Nadal on clay and see how mentally tough he is, easier to just serve your way through Agassi on a fast hard court.
And stereo!Mono prevented Federer from doing 6 in 6, plus the fact that Nadal being extremely dominant in the clay court season every year helped unlike Agassi who was inconsistent every year except 1995, Sampras was 1 yr younger than Agassi while Federer was 5 years older to Nadal.
A great post and mostly accurate. You have to qualify that Fed didn't get blown off the court not just because of specialization, but because the courts weren't fast enough to allow that to happen. Petros and others have commented on this.I think Sampras is ahead in the mental department, but not by as much as people say.
There are mental areas where Pete is ahead:
- Insanely clutch. When challenged in big matches, almost always found a way
- Could find a comfort zone even when playing a rival at their own game (ie baseline exchanges with Andre)
- Record in finals
- Unwaveringly calm temperament on court but also knew when to balance that with asserting himself with very intimidating physical body language.
There are areas where Federer is ahead:
- Playing into his forties and finding new ways to change the mental balance of power with his younger rivals and multiple later generations
- Incredible consistency and mental commitment year round. Really never got blown out by anyone other than a GOAT contender (Pete quite clearly took mental breaks through the season and has losses where he was not there mentally. Understandable given surface specialisation still very much a thing at that time).
There are areas of mental strength where they are almost equals and almost in a class of their own:
- Insanely clutch when protecting serve
- Could push themselves to the mental limit while maintaining a completely unaffected physical facade
- Could play a very high risk, low margin playing style with shockingly high consistency
- Could manufacture drive and commitment to excellence often with almost no external motivation (very scary trait shared by both players)
Dafuq? I've always 'herald'ed PETE. But spending about 1% of your time not making subtle and non-subtle jabs at Fed? I hope you kept your receipt for that smoke and those mirrors.Get back to me when you author a thread that honors Pete similarly. Until then you'll be secure in your sideline throne as Snip-King.
People forget Sampras was dragging his carcass around for 2 years between not just a major win, but any kind of tournament victory! He took his last Wimbledon over Rafter in 2000 and didn't come close to winning much of anything until he got into a serving groove at his last USO in 2002, defeating his personal pigeon, Andre Agassi! His ranking was spiraling down and he barely was in the top 20! Pete was done at 31, so Federer gets more credit since he still was able to get to #1 at 36! Very impressive even for a few months!Only problem here is that Pete would never be having a matchpoint at 38 years of age to hit that ace down the line which I am sure he is capable of hitting without fail, but then he has to be there to hit it, no?
Well.. He didn't have to.. Fed stuck around so long cause Djoker/Nadal grabbed on to his pant leg like a dog for the "mississipi leg hound" and wouldn't let goOnly problem here is that Pete would never be having a matchpoint at 38 years of age to hit that ace down the line which I am sure he is capable of hitting without fail, but then he has to be there to hit it, no?
Without modern medicine you expect Pete, the guy with Thalassemia and who couldn't get enough blood to his muscles, to compete at age 38? That Pete?Only problem here is that Pete would never be having a matchpoint at 38 years of age to hit that ace down the line which I am sure he is capable of hitting without fail, but then he has to be there to hit it, no?