mike danny
Bionic Poster
So thinking that Federer is better at W makes me a ****.
I presented facts to support my opinion. You on the other hand keep throwin the subjective crap
So now that Pete and Roger have 7 Wimbledons..
- Thread starter 90's Clay
- Start date
I presented facts to support my opinion. You on the other hand keep throwin the subjective crap
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Look despite losing 3 times he still made more finals than Sampras and won 5 cons titles.
Sampras's grass competitionis overrated
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Both Fed and Pete beat the same number of W champions.
But Fed beat more guys who went on to win W in the end than Pete. Plus another good player.
Listen you are entitled to your opinion. But to say it is not even close is laughable since Fed has better results when both started dominating the slam
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Let me know when.you come up with something more subtantiated than just a simple opinion
5 cons titles,7 cons finals, 8 total finals >>>>> losing early 3 times
abmk
Bionic Poster
Lol, ha ha. Look at the mirror.
The becker of the 90s whom sampras faced was nowhere close to his peak on grass. You are delusional if you think if he was.
Nadal of 2007-2008 and roddick of 2004 and 2009 were far better at Wimbledon vs federer
Atleast goran in 95, 98 was playing very well and at his peak. Sampras of 95 was struggling with him and he'd beat federer easily ? Lol ..
It'd be very close b/w these 2 at wimbledon as it would be at the uso and the yec
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Bump.
I know my post is also in the pro players talk but i wanted the guys in the general discussion to see it as well.
I would like to know where the fact that Sampras had better competition at W is coming from.
Let's analyze their contenders.
Sampras had: Becker, Agassi, Courier, Ivanisevic and Rafter.
Of all these 5 players, only 2 were W champions when Pete played them: Becker and Agassi. After them only Goran managed in the end to win a W title. Rafter despite not winning W still reached 2 finals so he proved himself as a strong grass contender. Courier only reached 1 final so let's rule him out.
So the W champions whom Pete defeated for his titles are Becker, Agassi and Ivanisevic. All 3 have 5 W titles together.
Now,Federer had: Hewitt, Roddick, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray.
Of all these 5 players, only 2 were W champions when Fed played them: Hewitt and Djokovic. After them Nadal and Murray managed in the end to win W titles. Roddick despite not winning W still reached 3 finals so he proved himself as a strong grass contender.
So the W champions whom Fed defeated for his titles are Hewitt, Djokovic, Nadal and Murray. Together they have 5 W titles.
It looks like Fed defeated more W champions than Pete who have won the same amount of W titles as Pete's competition.
So i do not see how Pete had tougher competition. Their comp looks equal to me, statistically speaking. Sure some may use subjective data such as: player X has a game more suited to grass than player Y. But the grass conditions have changed, compared to the 90's so it is useless to bring up thir argument. If the conditions change, obviously the competition changes as well. Fact is, it only matters how many finals you have reached and how many titles you have won. Not how good your game is suited for grass. Goran has a game very well suited for grass, but he still has the same number of W titles as Djokovic, whose game is not exactly suited to grass. So accomplishemnts are the ones that matter.
Please discuss
I know my post is also in the pro players talk but i wanted the guys in the general discussion to see it as well.
I would like to know where the fact that Sampras had better competition at W is coming from.
Let's analyze their contenders.
Sampras had: Becker, Agassi, Courier, Ivanisevic and Rafter.
Of all these 5 players, only 2 were W champions when Pete played them: Becker and Agassi. After them only Goran managed in the end to win a W title. Rafter despite not winning W still reached 2 finals so he proved himself as a strong grass contender. Courier only reached 1 final so let's rule him out.
So the W champions whom Pete defeated for his titles are Becker, Agassi and Ivanisevic. All 3 have 5 W titles together.
Now,Federer had: Hewitt, Roddick, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray.
Of all these 5 players, only 2 were W champions when Fed played them: Hewitt and Djokovic. After them Nadal and Murray managed in the end to win W titles. Roddick despite not winning W still reached 3 finals so he proved himself as a strong grass contender.
So the W champions whom Fed defeated for his titles are Hewitt, Djokovic, Nadal and Murray. Together they have 5 W titles.
It looks like Fed defeated more W champions than Pete who have won the same amount of W titles as Pete's competition.
So i do not see how Pete had tougher competition. Their comp looks equal to me, statistically speaking. Sure some may use subjective data such as: player X has a game more suited to grass than player Y. But the grass conditions have changed, compared to the 90's so it is useless to bring up thir argument. If the conditions change, obviously the competition changes as well. Fact is, it only matters how many finals you have reached and how many titles you have won. Not how good your game is suited for grass. Goran has a game very well suited for grass, but he still has the same number of W titles as Djokovic, whose game is not exactly suited to grass. So accomplishemnts are the ones that matter.
Please discuss
6
6-3 6-0
Guest
RFederer has one extra final, better winning % (on grass and at Wimbledon), more consecutive matches won, more titles on grass.
Any unbiased person would rate RFederer > PSampras. Only an idiot would argue otherwise.
Any unbiased person would rate RFederer > PSampras. Only an idiot would argue otherwise.
5 straight Wimbledon and 7 straight finals.
Comparing Pete 1993-2002 to Federer 2003-2012, Federer has better numbers.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Good analysis, also worth noting is that Becker was years from his best days e.g. the later 80's when Pete played him. Roddick was a tougher opponent in 2004 and 2009 than Becker was in the 90s...Becker in the 1995 final hit 15 double faults, 15! That's nearly 4 full games worth of doubles.
The one argument is that there was more depth of grass court specialists. You still get more serve and volley on grass than you get on other surfaces now though. Plus more players are competitive on grass now than ever before so it's swings and round abouts.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
You're gonna have to change your definition next year when Nadal gets straight setted by a nobody for a third year in a row.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
If you add up the total number of finals each of their opponents appeared in, Sampras comes out slightly ahead:
No. of finals (Sampras opponents):
Becker = 7
Ivanisevic = 4
Agassi = 2
Rafter = 2
Courier = 1
Pioline = 1
Total = 17
No. of finals (Federer opponents):
Nadal = 5
Roddick = 3
Murray = 2
Philippoussis = 1
Total = 11
No. of finals (Sampras opponents):
Becker = 7
Ivanisevic = 4
Agassi = 2
Rafter = 2
Courier = 1
Pioline = 1
Total = 17
No. of finals (Federer opponents):
Nadal = 5
Roddick = 3
Murray = 2
Philippoussis = 1
Total = 11
Last edited:
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
This stat doesn't make sense, Mainad. Becker was already playing in a Wimbledon final when Sampras was like 13 years old. It's like if Federer faced Sampras in one of his Wimbledon finals we'd have to add 7 to your total count.
Or theoretically, if Murray beat Nadal in this year's Wimbledon final that total count would be at 14 (for Federer, Nadal and Djokovic) but Murray would only have 2 Wimbledon titles at that point.
Yep, pretty poor analysis by Mainad.
And why is final is the only one that count since one has to win 7 matches?
Nadal 2013 FO semifinal was tougher than the final, same for Nole 2011 USO semifinal was tougher than the final.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
I was just trying to analyze the quality of each final opponent by looking at the total number of finals each of them appeared in, win or lose, as a measure of their ability on grass, Wimbledon in particular. That's all. Not saying it's the only kind of stat that matters by any means.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
You had the right intentions but you can't possibly judge one's competition based on the number of finals their opponents reached. Take Becker once again. The dude was in his prime probably in 1988-1991 or somewhere inbetween 1986-1992. His 7 Wimbledon finals really skews Sampras' stat as Boris reached 6 of his 7 Wimbledon finals in 1985-1991 whereas he faced Sampras in the final of 1995 and 3 times overall in 1993, 1995, 1997 - 2 of which (1995,1997) he was surely past his best.
It would make sense if the moment Federer (or Sampras) failed to reach a Wimbledon final their "slots" would be filled with great grass court players from their generation. It surely wasn't the case with Becker who made it to only 1 final after 1991 also with some luck as he should've lost to Agassi in the semis in the 1995 edition. It's a completely different generation of players.
Or let's look at a different example. Right now according to your stat Sampras stands at 17 and Federer at 14. What if Federer beat Dominic Thiem in this year's final and then Thiem went on to reach another 8 Wimbledon finals in the future? Federer would suddenly blow Sampras away in this stat.
The best way to determine who was better (if it's even possible, we're talking about 2 guys playing 10 years apart) is to look at achievements and if it's close then MAYBE at the competition they faced with your naked eye but it's still extremely hard to judge. I mean one can't possibly say if late 20's Becker was tougher than Hewitt in his early 20's, different playing conditions, different styles, different technology etc.
Last edited:
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Actually, Becker only faced Sampras in 1 final, 1995 (93 was Courier and 97 Pioline) but I take your point that Becker was probably past his prime by that time in contrast to all the other opponents. Federer's opponents were all at the height of their powers so that probably gives him the edge.
Actually, I made a blooper there (have edited my original post). I counted Hewitt as one of Federer's final opponents by mistake. The actual tally remains 17 to Sampras but now only 13 for Federer.
Yes, but if Thiem went on to play another 8 finals that would indicate that Thiem was a grasscourt player of some ability and not just some journeyman who managed to slip through the draw and unexpectedly find himself in a final!
I agree it's very tough to compare and, in the case of Sampras and Federer, so close that's it's difficult to be too scientific in trying to separate their stats as you've just pointed out to me in my rather amateurish attempt! :wink:
Last edited:
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
Of course but let's assume Thiem is nervous in the final (as it's his first) and gets straight setted by Federer who got there without facing any top 10 player en route to the final. This one lucky run for Federer would add 8 points to this stat.
This whole thing reminds me of a post I saw here a couple of years ago when comparing competition and the "strength" of a particular player. Someone asked "was Sampras tougher/worth more in 2002 when he had 14 Slams under his belt than 1994 when he had like 3-5?"
I appreciate your intentions but one can't possibly think of a new stat that hasn't been discussed a thousand times before on this forum. I'd assume we'd have to look at something different than career achievements (as in the Sampras/Becker case) cause it skews the stats in one's favor but more like:
1) runs to the final as for who did my opponent beat en route to the final. People laugh at Baghdatis in 2006 but he took down 3 top 10 players before getting to Federer in AO. On the other hand this stat doesn't apply to Verkerk who took down clay monsters in 2003 before getting owned in the final.
2) form in a season/period of time. 1994 Wimbledon semis - people don't talk about Todd Martin seriously when looking at Pete's toughest competition but the guy had great runs in Slams in 1994 where he reached a final and 2 semis. Or let's take into consideration a form over a span of 6 months. I don't think anyone would laugh at Nadal if he had to face Wawrinka in the final of the FO, people would laugh at Nadal's luck a year ago if that happened.
Last edited:
Such a comparison is unfair since Sampras' opponents have all retired but many of Federer's are still playing. Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray all have good chances to reach more Wimbledon finals. This sort of comparison only makes sense once everyone has retired (or is at least done making slam finals).
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Well, Sampras has also retired. We're talking about who he was up against when he was still active and all those opponents of his were very active at the time he was playing them. Only Becker, as discussed, was past his best.
Fair point but the comparison is of this moment in time. By the way, I made another blooper in including Djokovic as one of Federer's finalists. To date, he only ever played him in the semis. Federer has actually only played 4 different opponents in the Wimbledon final: Philippoussis, Roddick, Nadal and Murray (11 finals between them to date). Sampras played 6: Courier, Ivanisevic, Becker, Pioline, Agassi and Rafter (17 finals between them).
Exactly my point...Federer and his rivals are all still playing and likely to reach more finals. As others have pointed out (and you conceded as well), there are flaws in using this sort of stat to say that one had tougher competition than the other.
Even if there were no flaws and it was the perfect way to compare, the comparison wouldn't really be fair until Federer and his finals opponents are retired.
yoloiamtheman
Rookie
7 Titles + 1 Final + 1 win over Sampras. So FED is marginally better compared to Sampras.
But Sampras didnt lose to Agassi like Fed losing to Nadal but Sampras also lost to Richard Krajicek during his prime.
Overall FED>Sampras.
But Sampras didnt lose to Agassi like Fed losing to Nadal but Sampras also lost to Richard Krajicek during his prime.
Overall FED>Sampras.
helloworld
Hall of Fame
PMChambers
Hall of Fame
Borg was king of grass, it took one of the most brilliant S&V players to beat him and a dysfunctional year (4th tournament he played in 81) to beat him. Even his early years, first 3 years on tour he mad 2 QF one of which he lost to the evential winner A Ashe.
As far as Federer v Sampras, over the history of Wimbledon I think Federer would come out on top. I think he proved he could handled the 85" gut era & 100" poly era, but I think he'd do better in the 65" gut era as well. He would not dominate but I think he do reasonably better in two of the three era's and the Sampras era would be very close. It really comes done to Federer holding serve as you know he'll hit some untouchable returns to break server on several occasions through the match.
As far as Federer v Sampras, over the history of Wimbledon I think Federer would come out on top. I think he proved he could handled the 85" gut era & 100" poly era, but I think he'd do better in the 65" gut era as well. He would not dominate but I think he do reasonably better in two of the three era's and the Sampras era would be very close. It really comes done to Federer holding serve as you know he'll hit some untouchable returns to break server on several occasions through the match.
6
6-3 6-0
Guest
It's the obvious answer.
helloworld
Hall of Fame
Saying Fed is superior to Sampras when both have 7 titles only shows extreme bias of the Fa-rds.
6
6-3 6-0
Guest
Saying RFederer is equal to PSampras when he has an extra final, better win % shows the ******ness of PSampras fanboys :lol:
helloworld
Hall of Fame
It is only you who is showing extreme fanboyism here.
6
6-3 6-0
Guest
For once, put your fanboyism aside and think with the little amount of grey cells that you have (if any), its clear as a crystal that RFederer is greater than PSampras on grass.
Last edited by a moderator:
helloworld
Hall of Fame
For once, put your fanboyism aside and think with the little amount of grey cells that you have (if any), its clear as a crystal that RFederer is greater than PSampras on grass.
Sure, Federer is a far greater grass courter than Sampras, Fanboy.
6
6-3 6-0
Guest
Sure, Federer is a far greater grass courter than Sampras, Fanboy.
An idiot would argue otherwise
stringertom
Bionic Poster
As all RNfanboys will remind us, h2h is trump. BabyFed beat GOATSampras in their only meeting, no?
Povl Carstensen
Legend
Sure, only titles count.
PrinceMoron
Legend
If not Roger, has to be:
That dude and Bruce Jenner must be having some trans-Atlantic competition to see who can have the most work done to their face...
The one in the r/h corner is a devil woman, with evil on her mind.
Last edited:
Chanwan
G.O.A.T.
You've forgotten at least Hewitt (whom Fed beat 3 times at Wimbledon) and Djokovic.
Perhaps we should also include how often they met these Wimbledon champions/finalists.
Edit: Ah, I see, it's a different stat. Still - it's kind of a weird stat. Why not include semis as well? And do we actually learn anything by the stat? And as has been discussed - was 7 time finalist Becker that tough in 1995?
Last edited:
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
Federer has 3 more finals than Sampras, and won his 7 in more dominant fashion. all the arguments have already been made in this thread, not sure why you felt the need to bump it. Except you seem obsessed with trash talking fed for some reason.
xFedal
Legend
Not trashing Fed out all... He has tied Petes Benchmark... as for being more dominant again Pete won 4 or 5 of his without being broken....
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
That doesn't mean more dominant. If a guy wins a match 6-1, 6-1, 6-1, is he more or less dominant than a guy who won 6-4, 6-4, 6-4?
Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
xFedal
Legend
Depends Sampras was unbreakable.... Whereas Fed gets broken a lot more than Pete....
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
Which of the two scores was a more dominating Performance.
Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
xFedal
Legend
one score shows sets dominance and the other one shows that it was more closer ? Time duration? Serve Broken? .... 7/8 Is best run at Wimbledon.
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
So we're supposed to give Pete the benefit of only counting his prime years but ignore that he never had a deep run after 28?
Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
xFedal
Legend
Pete had declined a lot... could barely winning anything.... Still he is the one who set the Gold standard 7 Wimbledon in 8 years!!!.... 5 Defenses as well..... undefeated in finals too.... Il give Fed the nod when he has 8....
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll