What is better federer 8-11 in wimbledon finals or sampras 7-0?

What is a better record in Wimbledon Finals federer 8-11 Sampras 7-0

  • 8-11

    Votes: 127 85.8%

  • 7-0

    Votes: 21 14.2%
  • Total voters
    148
A

Amy Foster

New User
I was wondering this Roger Federer as of 2017 is now 8-11 in Wimbledon Finals meaning 8 wins and 3 losses, Pete Sampras was 7-0 so 7 wins and no losses, what do you think is the better record.
 
H_Richardson said:
Who knew it was such a difficult concept to grasp! :eek:
Click to expand...

Lets do it like this.

One person does the lottery for $1 seven times and each time he gets the jackpot of $1,000,000 - The other times he drops his $1 dollar on the way to buying another ticket, so in essence fails to get anymore jackpots, despite the fact every time he did buy the ticket, he won.

Second person does the lottery for $1 eleven times, now three of those times he does not get the jackpot, but eight of those times he does, each jackpot being $1,000,000.

Who is the one who buys the extra mansion? :):p
 
Hitman said:
Lets do it like this.

One person does the lottery for $1 seven times and each time he gets the jackpot of $1,000,000 - The other times he drops his $1 dollar on the way to buying another ticket, so in essence fails to get anymore jackpots, despite the fact every time he did buy the ticket, he won.

Second person does the lottery for $1 eleven times, now three of those times he does not get the jackpot, but eight of those times he does, each jackpot being $1,000,000.

Who is the one who buys the extra mansion? :):p
Click to expand...

I like this analogy :)
 
Those numbers make zero sense. It's supposed to say 8/11 and 7/7.
Anyway, when you put it like that, it still isn't correct because you're acting like Sampras won 7 Wimb out of 7 tries. In reality he entered the tournament many more times. Those 3 final losses from Fed are like silver medals, they're not just "the amount of tries".
So really it's Fed with 8 first place trophies, and 3 second place. Sampras has got 7 first place trophies and 0 second place.
 
How is this even a debate anymore. I'd take Federer if he lost another 5 finals.

Sampras was completely useless at Wimbledon in his 30s, if he kept playing it would've been embarassing, especially if he somehow got to peak Federer.
 
DRII said:
this is actually a good question (for reasons i'm sure i'll get to illustrate later).

of course, the more titles the better; but 7-0 illustrates a level of dominance in finals superior to 8-3...
Click to expand...
It's really 7/14 v/s 8/19. People can still argue Sampras has the better strike rate. But it suddenly doesn't look so dominant anymore.
 
Here's my take on it. In 11 out of 19 times at Wimbledon, Federer was one of the top 2 players there. That means he was in the top 1/128th 11 times.

Sampras was in the top 128th 7 times.

Now if we look at which one of these made it to the top 256th of everyone there:
Sampras: 7 times.
Federer: 8 times.

In which way does Federer not seem superior to Sampras here? Just because every time he was in the top 128th of all players, he was also in the top 256th of all players there that year? I've got some news for you- Sampras was worse than top 2 every single time he didn't make the final.

In 7 out of 14 (50%) of appearances at Wimbledon, Sampras was beaten before the final.
In 8 out of 19 (42%) of appearances at Wimbledon, Federer was beaten before the final.

In 6 out of 14 (43%)of appearances at Wimbledon, Sampras was beaten before the semi.
In 7 out of 19 (37%) of appearances at Wimbledon, Federer was beaten before the semi.

In 5 out of 14 (36%) of appearances at Wimbledon, Sampras did not make the quarterfinals.
In 4 out of 19 (21%) of appearances at Wimbledon, Federer did not make the quarterfinals.

Consistently, Federer has shown his ability to go further than Sampras on grass. On average, he went further at Wimbledon. He won 1 more Wimbledon than Sampras. He reached 4 more finals than Sampras. What else can he do to prove he is better than Sampras?
 
Both are very impressive. Before this past Wimbledon I would have given the nod to Sampras. Going undefeated at Wimbledon 7 times is unreal, but to win it 8 times with 11 finals is legendary
 
TripleATeam said:
Here's my take on it. In 11 out of 19 times at Wimbledon, Federer was one of the top 2 players there. That means he was in the top 1/128th 11 times.

Sampras was in the top 128th 7 times.

Now if we look at which one of these made it to the top 256th of everyone there:
Sampras: 7 times.
Federer: 8 times.

In which way does Federer not seem superior to Sampras here? Just because every time he was in the top 128th of all players, he was also in the top 256th of all players there that year? I've got some news for you- Sampras was worse than top 2 every single time he didn't make the final.

In 7 out of 14 (50%) of appearances at Wimbledon, Sampras was beaten before the final.
In 8 out of 19 (42%) of appearances at Wimbledon, Federer was beaten before the final.

In 6 out of 14 (43%)of appearances at Wimbledon, Sampras was beaten before the semi.
In 7 out of 19 (37%) of appearances at Wimbledon, Federer was beaten before the semi.

In 5 out of 14 (36%) of appearances at Wimbledon, Sampras did not make the quarterfinals.
In 4 out of 19 (21%) of appearances at Wimbledon, Federer did not make the quarterfinals.

Consistently, Federer has shown his ability to go further than Sampras on grass. On average, he went further at Wimbledon. He won 1 more Wimbledon than Sampras. He reached 4 more finals than Sampras. What else can he do to prove he is better than Sampras?
Click to expand...
Agree with everything stated here. However, still Sampras is better than Federer IN Wimbledon finals.
 
8 is always greater than 7. It's as simple as that, but if you ask who is better in finals, it is undoubtably Sampras. His stats in the finals was just unreal. Whereas, Federer had some pretty bad losses in the finals.
 
tennisaddict said:
Depends on if you asked the question to VB or the Fed intelligentia

VB would say it is better to lose earlier and not in finals when you have to deliver against top notch rivals
Click to expand...
F*ck no. Reaching a final is better than not reaching one. Winning the final is better than not winning it. Federer is better at reaching finals. Sampras is better at winning finals. End of argument
 
merwy said:
Those numbers make zero sense. It's supposed to say 8/11 and 7/7.
Anyway, when you put it like that, it still isn't correct because you're acting like Sampras won 7 Wimb out of 7 tries. In reality he entered the tournament many more times. Those 3 final losses from Fed are like silver medals, they're not just "the amount of tries".
So really it's Fed with 8 first place trophies, and 3 second place. Sampras has got 7 first place trophies and 0 second place.
Click to expand...
Nailed it. Always blows my mind when I see people holding runner-up runs AGAINST a guy. Crazy.
 
ADuck said:
F*ck no. Reaching a final is better than not reaching one. Winning the final is better than not winning it. Federer is better at reaching finals. Sampras is better at winning finals. End of argument
Click to expand...
Although I agree, the Sampras logic is a bit misleading. "Better at winning finals" is hard to say here because Federer ended up with more wins. If Player A and Player B both reached 4 finals, where Player A won 2, but Player B won all 4, certainly Player B is better at winning finals. However, if Player B reaches 1 final and wins it but Player A reaches 10 finals, losing 1, is Player B still better at winning finals? I'd say no.

For instance- Thomas Muster reached only 1 RG final and won it. Wilander reached 5 RG finals and won 3. I think Wilander is better in RG finals, since he won an absolute 3. Muster won an absolute 1. If we went by win percentages, though, we could claim Muster was better in RG finals than Wilander.
 
Amy Foster said:
I was wondering this Roger Federer as of 2017 is now 8-11 in Wimbledon Finals meaning 8 wins and 3 losses, Pete Sampras was 7-0 so 7 wins and no losses, what do you think is the better record.
Click to expand...
Please remain consistent in how you notate wins and losses.

Most people will use 8-3 = 8 wins, 3 losses.

What boggles my mind, however, is that you used one way for Federer (8-11 means 8 wins out of 11 finals) and another way for Sampras (7-0 means 7 wins and 0 finals losses). At first glance, I thought you were implying Federer won 8 out of 19 finals appearances. Someone else might have assumed you thought Federer won 8 out of 11 finals, and Sampras miraculously won 7 out of 0 finals. 2 other players were in the final, and Sampras somehow managed to rig the match so he would win...

Rant over.
 
TripleATeam said:
Although I agree, the Sampras logic is a bit misleading. "Better at winning finals" is hard to say here because Federer ended up with more wins. If Player A and Player B both reached 4 finals, where Player A won 2, but Player B won all 4, certainly Player B is better at winning finals. However, if Player B reaches 1 final and wins it but Player A reaches 10 finals, losing 1, is Player B still better at winning finals? I'd say no.

For instance- Thomas Muster reached only 1 RG final and won it. Wilander reached 5 RG finals and won 3. I think Wilander is better in RG finals, since he won an absolute 3. Muster won an absolute 1. If we went by win percentages, though, we could claim Muster was better in RG finals than Wilander.
Click to expand...
You're naming slam champions who have only reached 1, 2, 3 finals right? Well in those cases we cannot compare those players to eachother as they have not reached enough slam finals. Look at the percentage differences between 1 slam and 11 slam. That's what? 1100% more slam finals if i'm doing maths correctly, there's no way we can compare those two players. Now look at the percentage difference between 7 and 11.. 57%. Definitely two comparable numbers.
 
ADuck said:
You're naming slam champions who have only reached 1, 2, 3 finals right? Well in those cases we cannot compare those players to eachother as they have not reached enough slam finals. Look at the percentage differences between 1 slam and 11 slam. That's what? 1100% more slam finals if i'm doing maths correctly, there's no way we can compare those two players. Now look at the percentage difference between 7 and 11.. 57%. Definitely two comparable numbers.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, but I'd still put my money on absolute finals than on relative final performance.
 
LMAO yes 11 finals win 8 is better then 7 finals wins 7 and lose to mugs every other time. A semi is better than a QF and so on

I’d take the extra million plus dollars a final gets you vs losing to a mug 1st round too
 
ADuck said:
F*ck no. Reaching a final is better than not reaching one. Winning the final is better than not winning it. Federer is better at reaching finals. Sampras is better at winning finals. End of argument
Click to expand...

So Federer gets penalised because Sampras couldn't make some finals losing to the likes of a 19yr Old nobody (at the time), some big Dutch guy or 20yr old Goran?
 
Druss said:
So Federer gets penalised because Sampras couldn't make some finals losing to the likes of a 19yr Old nobody (at the time), some big Dutch guy or 20yr old Goran?
Click to expand...
Federer's final record was never better than Sampras' so you don't have a case
 
Druss said:
So Federer gets penalised because Sampras couldn't make some finals losing to the likes of a 19yr Old nobody (at the time), some big Dutch guy or 20yr old Goran?
Click to expand...
Also stop making it about Federer being penalized and devalued and ****, you need to stop victimizing Federer. Federer and Sampras' careers barely overlap so they didn't affect each other much at all.
 
forzamilan90 said:
these types of questions shouldn't be questions really, like Tom Brady with 5 wins and 2 losses in Superbowl vs Joe Montana with 4 wins. Winning an extra one and even having two other finals needs to stop being a stigma. People are so obsessed with perfect records that fail to see the big picture of accomplishment.
Click to expand...
"Oh no, a statistic that doesn't go Fed's way? I better try devaluing this thread by pointing out how people are 'obsessed' and shift the attention back to Fed's accomplishments"

Cut the sh*t. Sampras' perfect Wimbledon finals record is superior to that of Fed's who has 3 more losses and 1 more win. Nobody here is disputing that Federer is the better player at Wimbledon or in general, but having one more win, statistically doesn't make his final's record better.
 
Hitman said:
Lets do it like this.

One person does the lottery for $1 seven times and each time he gets the jackpot of $1,000,000 - The other times he drops his $1 dollar on the way to buying another ticket, so in essence fails to get anymore jackpots, despite the fact every time he did buy the ticket, he won.

Second person does the lottery for $1 eleven times, now three of those times he does not get the jackpot, but eight of those times he does, each jackpot being $1,000,000.

Who is the one who buys the extra mansion? :):p
Click to expand...
Are you a teacher by profession? If not, please be :)
 
Amy Foster said:
I was wondering this Roger Federer as of 2017 is now 8-11 in Wimbledon Finals meaning 8 wins and 3 losses, Pete Sampras was 7-0 so 7 wins and no losses, what do you think is the better record.
Click to expand...
The question "What is a better record in Wimbledon Finals federer 8-11 Sampras 7-0" - is exactly the same question as:

Which is better, 1 Wimbledon title, 3 runner-ups (Federer's next best 4 placings after his first 7 wins) versus a semi-final, a quarter final, a fourth round and a second round finish (Sampras' next best 4 placings after his 7 wins). Federer is so far ahead it isn't funny.

Slams are 7 matches not 1.
 
Last edited:
I don't know and I am not bothered about what is better. I am though convinced that each of the finalist of Sampras in Courier, Ivan (2), Agassi, Washington, Pioline, and Rafter would be handled as comfortably by Fed as Pete did that. In the current grass, I feel Sampras would have also have the same 7 at least against Philipousis, Roddick (3), Nadal (3/4), and Murray. If he faces Nole as late as Fed did in 2014/15, he would be losing badly than Fed. Frankly, I don't see Pete lasting even up to 2014/15, leave alone 2017.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TheMaestro1990
What is better Nadal 1-3 in AO finals or Murray 0-5?
2
Replies
58
Views
1K
TearTheRoofOff
TearTheRoofOff
A
  • Poll Poll
Who has the best record in wimbledon finals Federer or Sampras
Replies
12
Views
374
FHtennisman
FHtennisman
P
  • Poll Poll
Who is the Greatest Wimbledon player of all time?
6 7 8
Replies
369
Views
22K
NadalAgassi
N
JennyS
Federer vs Sampras and Borg in Grand Slams
Replies
42
Views
3K
tudwell
T
6-1 6-3 6-0
  • Poll Poll
Which period was most similar to Nadal's RG dominance: Sampras or Federer@Wimbledon?
2 3
Replies
107
Views
10K
Neptune
Neptune
Back
Top