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

Third Serve

Hall of Fame
funny you mention that cause Federer has a winning h2h in slams against both Sampras and Agassi.
This kind of argument can really go back and forth, ya know? Someone else might bring up Rafter or Kafelnikov’s h2h against Federer, then you’ll mention Hewitt and Safin, and then they’ll mention someone else. It’s one of the reasons why I’ve always despised the h2h argument. Just a big rabbit hole.
 

racquetreligion

Hall of Fame
More amazing he did it in the homogenized era without the counter defensive style that is more suitable/successful
on these slowed down conditions that favor from Nole, Nads and Muzzler.

Players like Safin, Rochus, Nalbandian, Ancic, Llodra, Muller, Stepanek, Mahut, and many others would have given
Sampras even lower percentage figures while someone like Chang in his prime would have loved this era.
Although Chang didnt win any more RGs since 17 it was due to him changing his game to suit HCs by being
more aggressive than depending on his supernatural foot speed and defense.

Night sessions are slower, Zverevs serve is superior to Goffin. The writing was on the wall soon as he got Fed-up
and started trying to get into Alex`s head with the copycat "lets go" effort, really appalling dirty old man tactic.
 

robthai

Hall of Fame
funny you mention that cause Pete's pet Rafter has a winning h2h in slams against Fed
I don't care about Rafter beating baby Fed on clay at RG during Feds first year on tour. It was before Fed had even won a title. Agassi also schooled Federer back then. We all know how that turned out for Agassi after Fed hit his peak.
 

robthai

Hall of Fame
This kind of argument can really go back and forth, ya know? Someone else might bring up Rafter or Kafelnikov’s h2h against Federer, then you’ll mention Hewitt and Safin, and then they’ll mention someone else. It’s one of the reasons why I’ve always despised the h2h argument. Just a big rabbit hole.
They would have just become Tim Henmans to Federer once he hit his peak.
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame
“I always believe that I have improved over the last 10 years, you know, that I’ve not gone backwards, and I’ve been able to win (the Open) 10 years ago, so I always feel as I move forward I am a more complete player, a better player,” Federer said. (December, 2013).


“I think I’m a better player now than when I was at 24 because I’ve practiced for another 10 years and I’ve got 10 years more experience,” Federer said. “Maybe I don’t have the confidence level that I had at 24 when I was winning 40 matches in a row, but I feel like I hit a bigger serve, my backhand is better, my forehand is still as good as it’s ever been, I volley better than I have in the past. I think I’ve had to adapt to a new generation of players again.” (August, 2015)


Question:

In 2003 you won your first title in Dubai. How much chances would the Federer of 2003 have against the Federer of today?

Answer from Federer:

Not many chances I believe. The game has extremely changed. It is more dynamic, faster and has become somewhat ruthless. The players are more athletic and the material makes the game faster. I myself have become better. In fact, I had to become better because I had new opponents and new challenges. Tennis on this level doesn’t allow you stagnancy. (March, 2019)
 

ForehandRF

Professional
“I always believe that I have improved over the last 10 years, you know, that I’ve not gone backwards, and I’ve been able to win (the Open) 10 years ago, so I always feel as I move forward I am a more complete player, a better player,” Federer said. (December, 2013).


“I think I’m a better player now than when I was at 24 because I’ve practiced for another 10 years and I’ve got 10 years more experience,” Federer said. “Maybe I don’t have the confidence level that I had at 24 when I was winning 40 matches in a row, but I feel like I hit a bigger serve, my backhand is better, my forehand is still as good as it’s ever been, I volley better than I have in the past. I think I’ve had to adapt to a new generation of players again.” (August, 2015)


Question:

In 2003 you won your first title in Dubai. How much chances would the Federer of 2003 have against the Federer of today?

Answer from Federer:

Not many chances I believe. The game has extremely changed. It is more dynamic, faster and has become somewhat ruthless. The players are more athletic and the material makes the game faster. I myself have become better. In fact, I had to become better because I had new opponents and new challenges. Tennis on this level doesn’t allow you stagnancy. (March, 2019)
Yeah, and Fed's movement also improved over the years with all the wear and tear after playing more than 1000 matches no ? Logic dude, logic.2015 Federer would have never been able to play close to 100 matches in a season like he did back in 2006 and never recover as quick between the matches.You conveniently omit physical decline and only look at technical improvements.
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame
Yeah, and Fed's movement also improved over the years with all the wear and tear after playing more than 1000 matches no ? Logic dude, logic.2015 Federer would have never been able to play close to 100 matches in a season like he did back in 2006 and never recover as quick between the matches.You conveniently omit physical decline and only look at technical improvements.
Why do you respond to me as if I said those things?
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame
Because you bring into discussion this things time and time again just to prove your convictions that older Federer was better than younger Federer.
I am just citing words of someone else that were in public domain without suggesting what they mean. You can argue with Federer. Explain to him how you know better.
p.s. I am curious to know what is your level of education?
 

ForehandRF

Professional
I am just citing words of someone else that were in public domain without suggesting what they mean. You can argue with Federer. Explain to him how you know better.
p.s. I am curious to know what is your level of education?
There is no need to argue with Federer or anything like it.I just understand the context behind what he said in those pressers.
I am an IT engineer.
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame
There is no need to argue with Federer or anything like it.I just understand the context behind what he said in those pressers.
I am an IT engineer.
If there is no need to argue with Federer, there is no need to argue with me. I am just bringing his voice to the discussion.
 

BorgTheGOAT

Professional
You know the response already...

"Sampras retired at his prime, Fed is still playing many years later as an old man, feeble and barely running, against players 28 years younger."
At no point of his career even at his absolute peak did Federer really have a positive slam head to head against Nadal and Djokovic combined. He was 4-3 at the end of 2007 but in 2008 this ended and he has a negative score since then.
 

ForehandRF

Professional
At no point of his career even at his absolute peak did Federer really have a positive slam head to head against Nadal and Djokovic combined. He was 4-3 at the end of 2007 but in 2008 this ended and he has a negative score since then.
I don't think it's good to combine the h2h between them anyway.Fed lead the h2h with Djokovic up until 2015, but he never lead the h2h with Nadal.The closest he has been to Nadal was at the end of 2007, 8-6 for Rafa at that point.

Edit : Now I see that you were referring to slams, but things are quite similar in this regard too.
 
Last edited:

BorgTheGOAT

Professional
Sampras played in an era of polarization and 16 seeds at slams. Consistency as shown by the Big three were absolutely impossible back then. It is not only Federer. Nadal, Djokovic and even Murray or Ferrer have some consistency records Pete couldn’t match. To think that this is a coincidence that the three best players of all time all play in the same generation is pretty naive to say the least. On top of that Pete had a very different approach to the game, he peaked for the important once (slams and WTF) and did not take other tournaments too seriously. He has tons of strange losses in smaller tournaments even to the degree that he obviously tanked (like in Queens). This, and his already mentioned poor results on clay brings his winning percentage down.
 
Last edited:

BorgTheGOAT

Professional
I don't think it's good to combine the h2h between them anyway.Fed lead the h2h with Djokovic up until 2015, but he never lead the h2h with Nadal.The closest he has been to Nadal was at the end of 2007, 8-6 for Rafa at that point.
I agree. I was just responding to the poster who insinuated that Feds negative combined H2H was only due to age. In reality, if we break it down, the only one who really posed problems to Federer is Nadal. With Djokovic their rivalry follows the general path in rivalries between ATGs, with the older dominating tja younger at the beginning until the younger one grows mature (and the older one leaves his prime) and catches up. The only reason Djokovic leads the H2H is that Fed stayed around until 38 so they played more matches peak/prime Djokovic vs Post prime Fed than peak/prime Federer vs pre prime Djokovic.
 

ForehandRF

Professional
I agree. I was just responding to the poster who insinuated that Feds negative combined H2H was only due to age. In reality, if we break it down, the only one who really posed problems to Federer is Nadal. With Djokovic their rivalry follows the general path in rivalries between ATGs, with the older dominating tja younger at the beginning until the younger one grows mature (and the older one leaves his prime) and catches up. The only reason Djokovic leads the H2H is that Fed stayed around until 38 so they played more matches peak/prime Djokovic vs Post prime Fed than peak/prime Federer vs pre prime Djokovic.
Good points.

Rafa's wicked forehand it's like specially designed to destroy one handers though, at least on high bouncing courts.I would say that it's impressive that Fed managed to beat him 16 times.
 

BorgTheGOAT

Professional
Good points.

Rafa's wicked forehand it's like specially designed to destroy one handers though, at least on high bouncing courts.I would say that it's impressive that Fed managed to beat him 16 times.
Also have to admit that Nadal benefitted from the circumstances of mainly slow courts. In the 90s with old Wimbledon grass, fast US Open courts and lot of carpet around he would have found difficulties to even reach Federer. I think the H2H would have been way more even.
 

ChrisRF

Hall of Fame
Also have to admit that Nadal benefitted from the circumstances of mainly slow courts. In the 90s with old Wimbledon grass, fast US Open courts and lot of carpet around he would have found difficulties to even reach Federer. I think the H2H would have been way more even.
That maybe not then. Because if he barely reaches him off-clay, his H2H advantage would be even higher. If anything it would be another proof of how meaningless H2H is in the big picture.

However, the US Open was never THAT fast, so Nadal would have his chances there. I agree about 90s grass and carpet though. At least if we consider the 90s equipment as well. With modern poly strings I think he could have some success even there.
 
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%)
More showing of how much more talent there is these days!
 

ForehandRF

Professional
That maybe not then. Because if he barely reaches him off-clay, his H2H advantage would be even higher. If anything it would be another proof of how meaningless H2H is in the big picture.

However, the US Open was never THAT fast, so Nadal would have his chances there. I agree about 90s grass and carpet though. At least if we consider the 90s equipment as well. With modern poly strings I think he could have some success even there.
I think the USO was slowed down 2 times in the last 20 years.First time at the beginning of the century and then in the 2010s.Either it's because of balls or courts or even both, the USO looks slower and the bounce is higher.Take a look at Fed-Davydenko back in USO 2006 for example to see differences compared to today.That's why Federer now uses more top spin on the forehand compared to his flatter one back then.
 

BorgTheGOAT

Professional
That maybe not then. Because if he barely reaches him off-clay, his H2H advantage would be even higher. If anything it would be another proof of how meaningless H2H is in the big picture.

However, the US Open was never THAT fast, so Nadal would have his chances there. I agree about 90s grass and carpet though. At least if we consider the 90s equipment as well. With modern poly strings I think he could have some success even there.
Federer would not reach him so often on clay either, the 90s were a different time. I agree Nadal wouldn’t reach him often at Wimbledon, but in the end who knows. Without his success off clay it could happen that Nadal wouldn’t be ranked as high as he is today and meet Federer already in some quarters or something. Anyways, if they met on 90s grass there is no chance in hell Rafa beats him. I would give him the same chances as I give Roger on clay.
 

ChrisRF

Hall of Fame
I think the USO was slowed down 2 times in the last 20 years.First time at the beginning of the century and then in the 2010s.Either it's because of balls or courts or even both, the USO looks slower and the bounce is higher.Take a look at Fed-Davydenko back in USO 2006 for example to see differences compared to today.That's why Federer now uses more top spin on the forehand compared to his flatter one back then.
I agree that it was slowed down. But it was always MUCH slower than grass and carpet. It was a completely different game on the 2 latter surfaces. Something like the 1987/88 US Open finals between Lendl and Wilander wouldn’t have happened on grass/carpet for example.

Go to “Point-by-Point description” here and look how long the rallyes were. The 1987 final lasted almost 5 hours despite having only 4 sets and one 6-0.


Another example is Corretja troubling Sampras until he vomits on court in 1996 by literally playing a clay match with high balls to the backhand.
 

beard

Professional
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%)are
So much talk about numbers which are soooooo WRONG...

Acording to you, Fed had 83.79% in first and 86.19% in second part of carrier...
In reallity, he has 82.15% on carrier level... Numbers you are giving to Fed didn't had even Borg or Nadal... Do you even understan how big is 1% on this level?

Fed fans math is great...
Do you really have to fake numbers to make Fed bigger?
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
That simply means Federer's level is matched by Rafa and Novak everywhere while in Pete's case, nobody was able to match him on grass. On other surfaces, Pete was beat plenty of times :)
I must have missed the part where Sampras actually had a Rafa or a Novak or both.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
That simply means Federer's level is matched by Rafa and Novak everywhere while in Pete's case, nobody was able to match him on grass. On other surfaces, Pete was beat plenty of times :)
No, that would work only if Courier and Agassi hung around slam QFs and SFs at a regular basis like Rafa and Novak, and they weren't even remotely close. Courier literally just had a window of two years in the top 5, Agassi was on and off. Is Rafa on and off? Not a chance. Sampras had a variety of rivals to beat on the way to winning slams, it wasn't two guys challenging him every year from 1993-2002.

It's the same logic by which we all (except some Fedfans) concluded that 2003-2006 is weak era, because RF had no consistent challengers.

Besides, RF fans could say that RF dominated Roddick far more than Pete dominated Courier, by having an even better pigeon H2H, and by not allowing Roddick to win more slams. Sampras lost two matches in slams to Courier, despite that being his pigeon. RF didn't allow Roddick one win.

You have to use some other logic to promote Sampras's greatness over RF. Good luck with that though...
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
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.
Yes.

People get easily confused by numbers and their fanboy bias.

Sampras fans say that the 90s were more competitive. Yes they were. BUT, in the sense of a stronger top 10 or top 20. The top 3 however was fluctuating because nobody was nearly as consistent as Sampras hence he had LESS competition at the very top, when playing for titles. He may have had tougher earlier rounds than the Big 3 but his finales opponents were often lackluster or just not quite on the level of Rafa and Novak in terms of overall consistency.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DSH

NatF

Bionic Poster
This thread is garbage all round, the thread premise is nonsensical because when you look at the biggest events Sampras did way better - who cares about a little higher win/loss?

But the arguments from Sampras apologists are stupid as always too...
 

beard

Professional
This thread is garbage all round, the thread premise is nonsensical because when you look at the biggest events Sampras did way better - who cares about a little higher win/loss?

But the arguments from Sampras apologists are stupid as always too...
Premise is nonsensical at first because OP faked numbers that he used as argument in first post...
 

SaintPetros

Hall of Fame
Yeah, and Fed's movement also improved over the years with all the wear and tear after playing more than 1000 matches no ? Logic dude, logic.2015 Federer would have never been able to play close to 100 matches in a season like he did back in 2006 and never recover as quick between the matches.You conveniently omit physical decline and only look at technical improvements.
True, you should point these insights of yours out to Federer, as I'm sure he is unaware of the effect of wear and tear on his playing level. After all, what does Federer know.
 

SaintPetros

Hall of Fame
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:
You've spread the Riya Sen gospel to me and made a believer of me as well.
 

ollinger

G.O.A.T.
Are these threads medicinal for the OP? Always seem to appear the day after Fed gets taken to the cleaners.
 

SaintPetros

Hall of Fame
lol...Fed played/plays in an era with the three greatest players of all time....Sampras was the only ATG of his era and couldn't even win one Freanch. Weak.
Fed couldn't even accrue winning records against his rivals despite accruing wins over them for five years before they exited puberty, and has been thoroughly bumped down to bronze status since. Weeeeeaaakkkk
 

Sunny Ali

Hall of Fame
I must have missed the part where Sampras actually had a Rafa or a Novak or both.
Otha Mike ... Sampras was hardly unbeatable. He lost plenty of times on hard and clay courts and to many different players. It was only on the grass of Wimbledon that he was virtually untouchable in his prime. There's a word for that ... peerless! The grass King was alone on that summit :)
 

ForehandRF

Professional
True, you should point these insights of yours out to Federer, as I'm sure he is unaware of the effect of wear and tear on his playing level. After all, what does Federer know.
No, I was just explained this things to ABCD because he repeats himself with these posts.Nice try with your sarcasm though.
 

Sunny Ali

Hall of Fame
No, that would work only if Courier and Agassi hung around slam QFs and SFs at a regular basis like Rafa and Novak, and they weren't even remotely close. Courier literally just had a window of two years in the top 5, Agassi was on and off. Is Rafa on and off? Not a chance. Sampras had a variety of rivals to beat on the way to winning slams, it wasn't two guys challenging him every year from 1993-2002.

It's the same logic by which we all (except some Fedfans) concluded that 2003-2006 is weak era, because RF had no consistent challengers.

Besides, RF fans could say that RF dominated Roddick far more than Pete dominated Courier, by having an even better pigeon H2H, and by not allowing Roddick to win more slams. Sampras lost two matches in slams to Courier, despite that being his pigeon. RF didn't allow Roddick one win.

You have to use some other logic to promote Sampras's greatness over RF. Good luck with that though...
I have stated multiple times that I don't buy this 'weak era' theory. Certain players dominate simply because they are better than everyone else. Federer fans like to promote this weak era nonsense simply because they have a difficult time accepting that another player, namely Djokovic, just happens to be a better player than their favorite. That is no slight, it's just a fact.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Otha Mike ... Sampras was hardly unbeatable. He lost plenty of times on hard and clay courts and to many different players. It was only on the grass of Wimbledon that he was virtually untouchable in his prime. There's a word for that ... peerless! The grass King was alone on that summit :)
Again, I missed the part where he had a Rafa or Novak on any surface.

He was pearless on grass because he had no peer like Rafa or Novak.

Fed would be sitting on 12 Wimb's without them.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
I have stated multiple times that I don't buy this 'weak era' theory. Certain players dominate simply because they are better than everyone else. Federer fans like to promote this weak era nonsense simply because they have a difficult time accepting that another player, namely Djokovic, just happens to be a better player than their favorite. That is no slight, it's just a fact.
You don't know much about tennis, do you?
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
I have stated multiple times that I don't buy this 'weak era' theory. Certain players dominate simply because they are better than everyone else. Federer fans like to promote this weak era nonsense simply because they have a difficult time accepting that another player, namely Djokovic, just happens to be a better player than their favorite. That is no slight, it's just a fact.
No.

RF fans were totally against weak eras a decade ago. They made a 180 since about 5 years ago and try to use the weak era argument to diminish Novak as a player just as they'd worked tirelessly to diminish Rafa. Unfortunately for them, Rafa and Novak diminished RF. Poetic justice.

Weak eras exist. Because if they didn't that would mean that humans are robots. I.e. every generation is factory-produced and hence the same.
 

Sunny Ali

Hall of Fame
You don't know much about tennis, do you?
Mike ... you've been around here long enough to know people can have a variety of opinions. We can agree to disagree but please don't be so arrogant as to think you're entitled to ride that high horse making condescending remarks like this one.
 

Sunny Ali

Hall of Fame
No.

RF fans were totally against weak eras a decade ago. They made a 180 since about 5 years ago and try to use the weak era argument to diminish Novak as a player just as they'd worked tirelessly to diminish Rafa. Unfortunately for them, Rafa and Novak diminished RF. Poetic justice.

Weak eras exist. Because if they didn't that would mean that humans are robots. I.e. every generation is factory-produced and hence the same.
Highlighted part- that is precisely my point. Fully agreed! :)

Underlined part- agree to disagree :)
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Fed couldn't even accrue winning records against his rivals despite accruing wins over them for five years before they exited puberty, and has been thoroughly bumped down to bronze status since. Weeeeeaaakkkk
Sampras couldn't even accrue winning records over Hewitt, Safin and Roddick :-D People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Mike ... you've been around here long enough to know people can have a variety of opinions. We can agree to disagree but please don't be so arrogant as to think you're entitled to ride that high horse making condescending remarks like this one.
The weak era talk didn't come from Federer fans, so your prejudice was unwaranted.
 
Top