Sorry but it blows my mind that Federer's Win/Loss % from 2011 to 2019 is higher than Sampras from 1992-2000

Bukmeikara

Legend
Fed is the GOAT but this could be explained with the fact that given the modern nutrion and medicine - big 4 + Wawrinka/Del Potro were able to prolong their career without losing speed and stamina. This resulted in the fact that younger players have no advantage in those physical aspects and they couldn't fight against their experience as well which means no confidence.
 

Fiero425

Hall of Fame
More proof of current weak era.
Not as much the current era being weak as that past "Golden Age of Tennis" was quite strong! Back then at any given time in a tourney you could have 6-12 champions of a major! Winning was a lot more diverse and "huge" comebacks were more notable since players weren't able to artificially survive a good effort from an opponent! Back then a break was "GOLD" and it was enough to finish off a set! These days 2 breaks isn't enough even with the elites playing one another! I have as much frustration with the "also rans" of today allowing 4 players to own an era like no other time in Pro tennis history! There are PLENTY of players who have the ability to break thru or they wouldn't be in the top 100 in the world, but these ATG's are just showing how far and away they are the best of all time! :sneaky:
 
Last edited:
Sorry but it blows my mind that Federer's win/loss % from 2011 to 2019 (ages 30 to 38) is higher than Sampras' was from 1992-2000 (ages 21-29)

Sampras was 569-124 (82.11%)

Federer is 553-107 (83.79%)

For those wondering, Federer from 2002-2010 was 643-103 (86.19%)
Sampras did not have the luxury of the weakest era of all time that was 2003-2006.
 
Weakest era of all time is incredibly subjective. There may be weaker eras than others but I don't think it's possible to conclude an era was the weakest. In my opinion, 2000-2002 was even weaker and 2016-2019 isn't too good either.
Some will say Shanghai shows this is a tough era...i say Federer and Djokovic are going through motions even if they think they are up for it. Past three years has been 3 guys and thiem on clay occasionally.

2000-2002 was that bad i dont even count it as an era. It was one of those periods best forgotten.
 

Third Serve

Hall of Fame
Some will say Shanghai shows this is a tough era...i say Federer and Djokovic are going through motions even if they think they are up for it. Past three years has been 3 guys and thiem on clay occasionally.

2000-2002 was that bad i dont even count it as an era. It was one of those periods best forgotten.
It was necessary, though. Sampras and Agassi were fading away and the next gen was ascending. A transitional era. I would extend that to 2003 as well, but I believe that year was a bit deeper than the ones before. We'll encounter a transition just like that when the Big 3 eventually fall of the top. I have a feeling 2021 might be that season.
 

SaintPetros

Hall of Fame
Not as much the current era being weak as that past "Golden Age of Tennis" was quite strong! Back then at any given time in a tourney you could have 6-12 champions of a major! Winning was a lot more diverse and "huge" comebacks were more notable since players weren't able to artificially survive a good effort from an opponent! Back then a break was "GOLD" and it was enough to finish off a set! These days 2 breaks isn't enough even with the elites playing one another! I have as much frustration with the "also rans" of today allowing 4 players to own an era like no other time in Pro tennis history! There are PLENTY of players who have the ability to break thru or they wouldn't been in the top 100 in the world, but these ATG's are just showing how far and away they are the best of all time! :sneaky:
I hope comments like these are signs that the Iron Curtain of Fraud is slowly falling away.
 

SaintPetros

Hall of Fame
Sorry but it blows my mind that Federer's win/loss % from 2011 to 2019 (ages 30 to 38) is higher than Sampras' was from 1992-2000 (ages 21-29)

Sampras was 569-124 (82.11%)

Federer is 553-107 (83.79%)

For those wondering, Federer from 2002-2010 was 643-103 (86.19%)
Some minds are more easily blown than others.
 

Fiero425

Hall of Fame
Plus, his inconsistency on clay brings his overall numbers down. I’d love to see these stats ordered by surface.
What's so sad is just 20 years ago, we were all ready to give PETE a pass on even making a French Open final! We excoriate each of the Elite 3 for having a shortcoming even though that shortcoming is "they only have one championship" at a particular event! :unsure:
 

ForehandRF

Professional
Sampras did not have the luxury of the weakest era of all time that was 2003-2006.
This thread is about Fed's 2011-2019 compared with Pete's 1992-2000.You are so into Fed bashing you don't even read the thread's title properly :laughing::laughing::laughing:

FYI Pete's 1997-1998 were much weaker than Fed's 2003-2006.Inconvenient, no ?
 

Sunny Ali

Hall of Fame
Sorry but it blows my mind that Federer's win/loss % from 2011 to 2019 (ages 30 to 38) is higher than Sampras' was from 1992-2000 (ages 21-29)

Sampras was 569-124 (82.11%)

Federer is 553-107 (83.79%)

For those wondering, Federer from 2002-2010 was 643-103 (86.19%)
Omala, what is your point? That Federer is a greater player than Sampras? If so, let's agree to disagree because I don't want to get caught up in another pointless discussion.
 

SaintPetros

Hall of Fame
Omala, what is your point? That Federer is a greater player than Sampras? If so, let's agree to disagree because I don't want to get caught up in another pointless discussion.
Off topic but more worthy of discussion - who is the young lady in your pic?
 

SaintPetros

Hall of Fame
No checking required. I said 'main focus', as in, you know, what's also included in the title.
I mean since the poster you're responding to identified the weakest era in history, he just has to respond with "PETE didn't have the luxury of the second weakest era in history from 2011-2019"
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
More proof of current weak era.
Nope, the 90s were very competitive, had a large number of slam winners and slam contenders.

But it had just one GOAT. Who as a result won a lot of slams in the 90s, 12. More than twice as many as the next-best 90s player, Agassi.

3rd was Courier with just 4.

Agassi was too inconsistent (weak or injured or bored in 1993, 1996, 1997, even 1998) to count as a threat as consistent as Novak and Rafa.
 

Sunny Ali

Hall of Fame
Off topic but more worthy of discussion - who is the young lady in your pic?
Otha Petros ... where do I start? I knew nothing about the lady in my pic until in a discussion with @Raul_SJ, he convinced me to replace Sunny Deol in my avatar with this lady and he proceeded to tell me about her. Her name is Riya Sen and I'm now one of her biggest fans! :oops:
 

ChrisRF

Hall of Fame
But Sampras was the best of his era, Federer is third wheel.
Not yet! At least Djokovic overtaking him doesn’t seem that certain anymore. Also what does "best of his era" really mean in comparison when Sampras despite being somewhat "alone" as a tier one ATG in era having worse numbers than all of the Big 3 while competing with each other.
 
You got the FEDR total wrong, it's 482-94 (83.68%) for the respective time period.

Breakdown for PETE (superior % bolded):

Clay: 77-36 (68.14%)

Hard&carpet masters: 127-34 (78.88%)

Wimbelle: 58-2 (96.67%)

HC slems: 80-10 (88.89%)


YEC+GSCup: 42-14 (75.00%) (GSC is 4 rounds to YEC's 5 matches max and Olympics is 6 rounds, equalising for that gives PETE a slightly higher cumulative percentage in this category)

Lesser tournies off clay: 175-23 (88.38%)

Davis Cup off clay: 10-5 (66.66%)

--------------

Breakdown for FEDR (superior % bolded):

Clay: 72-24 (75.00%)

HC masters: 122-26 (82.43%)


Wimbelle: 46-7 (86.79%)

HC slems: 76-15 (83.52%)

YEC+Olympics: 28-9 (75.68%)

Lesser tournies off clay: 128-13 (90.78%)

Davis Cup off clay: 10-0 (100.00%)



Conclusion: FEDR, as expected, shows a significantly higher % on clay, and a solid difference in non-clay small prizes, as well vulturing non-clay DC against MUGS, but when it comes to top non-kley stuff PETE retains higher percentage. Fred's strong advantage in masters consistency is pleasant but obviously much less significant.
 

SaintPetros

Hall of Fame
Not yet! At least Djokovic overtaking him doesn’t seem that certain anymore. Also what does "best of his era" really mean in comparison when Sampras despite being somewhat "alone" as a tier one ATG in era having worse numbers than all of the Big 3 while competing with each other.
Means his era was way tougher than the likes of Baghdatis, Gonzales, Roddick, aged Agassi and friends.
 

SaintPetros

Hall of Fame
You got the FEDR total wrong, it's 482-94 (83.68%) for the respective time period.

Breakdown for PETE (superior % bolded):

Clay: 77-36 (68.14%)

Hard&carpet masters: 127-34 (78.88%)

Wimbelle: 58-2 (96.67%)

HC slems: 80-10 (88.89%)


YEC+GSCup: 42-14 (75.00%) (GSC is 4 rounds to YEC's 5 matches max and Olympics is 6 rounds, equalising for that gives PETE a slightly higher cumulative percentage in this category)

Lesser tournies off clay: 175-23 (88.38%)

Davis Cup off clay: 10-5 (66.66%)

--------------

Breakdown for FEDR (superior % bolded):

Clay: 72-24 (75.00%)

HC masters: 122-26 (82.43%)


Wimbelle: 46-7 (86.79%)

HC slems: 76-15 (83.52%)

YEC+Olympics: 28-9 (75.68%)

Lesser tournies off clay: 128-13 (90.78%)

Davis Cup off clay: 10-0 (100.00%)



Conclusion: FEDR, as expected, shows a significantly higher % on clay, and a solid difference in non-clay small prizes, as well vulturing non-clay DC against MUGS, but when it comes to top non-kley stuff PETE retains higher percentage. Fred's strong advantage in masters consistency is pleasant but obviously much less significant.
This thread should really be titled, "Of Mugs and Men: A look at the numbers behind the '10s and how they reveal it as the weakest era ever when stacked against a Real Champ."
 
But Sampras was the best of his era, Federer is third wheel.
I'm not the first poster to note this, but it is hilarious how you only have two types of posts:

1. Elaborate statistics purporting to show some undiscovered truth
2. Bitchy posts about Federer

Both types of posts being for the same purpose, of course. However, if you were a true statistician, you would concede that, as yet, Federer cannot be considered 3rd wheel of his era by any means. He remains the man with most slams, most weeks at No 1, and most YEC titles, of his era.
 

ChrisRF

Hall of Fame
Means his era was way tougher than the likes of Baghdatis, Gonzales, Roddick, aged Agassi and friends.
It was tougher FOR HIM because he wasn’t as good and consistant as the Big 3. Everything else is just baseless speculation. Look at the names he lost to in Slams and you will find many guys worse than Baghdatis. Also Sampras not winning any Slam other than Wimbledon from age 26-30 says so much.

He was great, but not even close to Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. And he is my 2nd favorite player of all time only after Federer, so I would love to be able to rate him over Rafa/Nole, but I have to stay realistic here.
 

SaintPetros

Hall of Fame
I'm not the first poster to note this, but it is hilarious how you only have two types of posts:

1. Elaborate statistics purporting to show some undiscovered truth
2. Bitchy posts about Federer

Both types of posts being for the same purpose, of course. However, if you were a true statistician, you would concede that, as yet, Federer cannot be considered 3rd wheel of his era by any means. He remains the man with most slams, most weeks at No 1, and most YEC titles, of his era.
Dude coos like a pigeon when facing other ATGs, no statistical analysis required.
 

Chadalina

Legend
Sorry but it blows my mind that Federer's win/loss % from 2011 to 2019 (ages 30 to 38) is higher than Sampras' was from 1992-2000 (ages 21-29)

Sampras was 569-124 (82.11%)

Federer is 553-107 (83.79%)

For those wondering, Federer from 2002-2010 was 643-103 (86.19%)
Tennis was much deeper back then. Homogenized surfaces produce homgenized results, who would thunk it!!!
 

bjsnider

Hall of Fame
For those wondering, Pete Sampras played in an era of specialists, where the surfaces were tuned to produce different classes of players. Federer plays in a different era, where the surfaces are tuned towards mediocrity and homogeneity.
 

Zetty

Professional
Fed (and the rest of the Big 4) feasted on a struggling intermedium era. Sports science has effectively killed the Grigorious Age.
 

DSH

Hall of Fame
Nope, the 90s were very competitive, had a large number of slam winners and slam contenders.

But it had just one GOAT. Who as a result won a lot of slams in the 90s, 12. More than twice as many as the next-best 90s player, Agassi.

3rd was Courier with just 4.

Agassi was too inconsistent (weak or injured or bored in 1993, 1996, 1997, even 1998) to count as a threat as consistent as Novak and Rafa.
This is interesting.
Sampras, as you said, won 12 Majors in the 90s. A Slams record won by a player in a decade until Federer won 15 Majors in the early 2000s, which was recently matched by Djokovic in the 2010s.

Nadal won 13 Slams in this decade, but he is "only" the second with more titles of Majors after the Serbian, but at the same time, he is better than what was achieved by Sampras 20 years ago.
This is crazy!
The big3 really took tennis one level never seen.
 
Last edited:

robthai

Hall of Fame
failure of the previous generation allowed the dinosaurs to dominate for a prolonged period of time.
 
Top