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

[Deleted member 758560]

..................

.

 

[timnz]

FFS. People still do not get it, and if you've read through my several posts here suffice to say you will never get it. I never claimed Sampras is better than Federer at Wimbledon. 8>7 + Federer has 11 finals to Sanpras' 7. However, cherrypicked stat or not 7-0 is a better finals record than 8-3. People arguing to me that contexts matters, sure it does, when you're debating who is the better player at Wimbledon that matters, when you're talking about who has the better finals record it's Sampras. Unless you want to say it's unfair to make a comparison because there's not an equal sample size for each player, that's the answer. In a maths test, y'all would fail this straitghtforwar question.

You are right in theory logically 100% is better than < 100%. However, I am arguing about the VALUE of that statistic. I think it is not valuable at all, and in fact it is misleading because it infers superiority when the reality is far different (it advantages losing before the final over making the final).

 

[Subway Tennis]

Very interesting commentary in this thread. I have nothing to add beyond my original (scant) remarks but the input from others is good reading.

 

[-NN-]

hmmmm...well obviously Feds record of 8-3 is better than Sampras of 7-0 (OP didn't state it correctly to add further confusion).

However, I have to disagree a bit about your larger point. I think I already explained a bit in this thread, but it really depends on a few factors.

Where people on your side of the aisle (and you are probably in the majority) are getting caught up a bit is because obviously and clearly in an individual year, to make a finals is a better result than losing in an early round. I think this is why people, like yourself, are so sure of their position...the alternative seems stupid when you think about it this way. Add to it people who tout "perfect record in finals" on the other side and it gets divisive pretty quick.

Here's what I think is really going on: while it is better to make and lose in a final than lose earlier in a given year, a career record of say going 7-4 in finals instead of 7-0 would probably tend to indicate that the former might have been less dominant above and beyond the field or at the least his main rival.

Now of course we can get into the hypotheticals, every year Sampras lost in an earlier round, what if he made the final and lost? That would have been a better result in each year for him but his finals record would be like what 7-8, or something like that?

Here's the reality: 2 different things can be true.

1. is that you have to be playing a certain level of tennis to make a final and how one does on the biggest stage while playing well enough to be in a final tells us a bit about them.

2. is in a given year a finals loss is a better result than losing earlier and using this fact you can create hypotheticals that appear to make a mockery of the "perfect record in finals" thing. For example, clearly if Federer had not been amazingly good enough in his 30s to make the finals in 2014/2015 he would have a "better finals percentage" record. That seems silly to penalize him for that, I totally agree. However, what about 2008? Sampras never had a loss like that at Wimbledon.

There will even be some who take it to the next logical step and say that loss shouldn't count at all against Federer, because what if he had just lost in the SF ? Clearly that wouldn't be better, yet his finals record would be better....I get it, but I think it's a one dimensional way of looking at it. The reality is when you make a final or a huge stage big match you are putting your legacy on the line in a small way.

That's the thing: we can discern. I'm sure many people will take issue with me saying Sampras never had a loss like the Fedal 2008 loss for Federer; what about him getting blitzed by Kraicjek in the quarters, surely it's better to make the final and lose in 5 sets to your main rival? Maybe, maybe not. Again in a given year the finals result is better. But does it not also matter how you do when you are contesting huge slam finals with huge gravitas against your main rival? I think it does and I don't think hypothetical ways of looking at it effectively shift away completely the value of this.

Some finals losses are purely positives but some aren't imo and can't just be contextualized as "well that's better than losing in any previous round." I think that's a bit of a category error in a subtle way...the conversation has shifted.

When you see a few finals losses, that might indicate that the player has lost on the biggest stage in tight meaningful matches at that venue. It might not indicate that, and in fact I can argue with Federer 14/15 were purely positives that didn't mean anything like that, but 08 DID mean that imo. When you have a finals few losses, it's likely at least 1 will be something that shook the veneer of "dominance" or "invincibility" that the player had there and not due to aging or making the final when one had no business doing so.

Sampras never had a loss like that of Federer in the Wimbledon final in 2008, and I think that distinction between the 2 is meaningful.

Note: I still think Federer is better than Sampras at Wimbledon (first of all it is 8 to 7), and even if the 2 were tied, you could argue Fed's extra finals, even including a "bad" loss are overall a net positive. But some discernment has to take place IMO and you cant just say 3 finals more is obviously better and anyone who disagrees is stupid etc.

I said this earlier in the thread, but this finals record thing is a remarkably similar thing to the H2H debate btw AND the 5th set record one...you can't just completely invalidate all these statistics because there are ways in which they can lead to counterintuitive results.

The answer really is it depends.

I don't know if you watch basketball, but Jordan=6-0. Lebron is 3-6 in NBA Finals. Forgetting the team dynamic difference in basketball vs tennis for the purpose of this comparison, Let's say Lebron manages to win 3 more and ends up at 6-6. Would 6 and 6 be better because that's 6 more finals than Jordan. Even if they're finals losses, they're better than the years Jordan didn't even make the finals, right? Thing is again, with that many losses, I would guess there would be years in which Lebron didn't perform great when he was expected to in the finals. It COULD be that every year he made the finals was a bonus and crazy to hold against him. And there were certainly a few that were like that, akin to Fed's 14/15 Wimbledons. But we also have a series against the Spurs that was poor in '14 and the infamous Mavericks '11 series where he combusted. Jordan NEVER had that. That's what you might suspect from looking at 6-0 and 6-6 and it turns out it's true. Just like the Fed/Sampras comparison.

Now one might still prefer the 6-6 to 6-0 player in spite of a couple more collapses---and I probably would still favor Fed if he was only 7-3 vs Sampras' 7-0 but I think it still that has to be considered that more finals losses while a net positive in a given year could, especially if it's a few of them, indicate failings on the biggest stages that the "perfect" guy doesn't have. Since two players careers rarely overlap perfectly, we could also note that it's possible the player with more finals losses was able to make plenty of finals because of weaker competition outside of 1 rival, but wasn't that dominant over that 1 rival as the "perfect" guy with less finals appearances and less finals losses.

It's then up to us to decide which and up to us to discern further.

A simple way to put it would be to say that the cause of the confusion is that there are 2 conflicting principles at play here and both are true.

1. A finals loss is a better result than losing in any previous round or not playing in any given year.

2. How one does on the biggest stages matters and tells us something about them. It might not be everything or even particularly meaningful, but it counts for something.

Thank you from the bottom of my heart if you made it this far

 

[Towser83]

The longevity has everything to do with Wimbledon ability, and vice versa. The reason Fed kept going after dismal 2013 had everything to do with his ability to run deep at Wimbledon. The reason why he believed in himself despite disappointing 2016 was the deep runs of 2014/15. His deep run in 2014/15 is similar to Pete's 2000-01 final losses at USO. If Pete had made the finals of 2001-02 at Wimbledon, no way he hangs up despite winning 2002 USO. Wimbledon has always been that much greater than USO. So, crediting longevity is the same as Wimbledon ability for Fed.



Ask the journeyman whether he would have like to have a go at Round 1 and risk his perfect 7-0 record of R1 and you would know who the REAL fool is


Of course, there will be something which Sampras would be better than Fed.


See the above, longevity had everything with Wimbledon ability

Yeah but what I'm saying is Sampras was just as good at dominating Wimbledon, he just retired earlier. Maybe he could have won Wimbledon again, my feeling is it would have been hard with the grass slowing, but at his best there's no one BETTER at Wimbledon, not even Federer. It's just Federer seems to be able to produce levels close to his best later into his career. It's like if Djokovic somehow managed to keep playing decent tennis into his mid 40s and got to 8 titles at wimbledon, I'd say he was the better overall player but maybe not the better wimbledon player compared to Sampras...

 

[ADuck]

You are right in theory logically 100% is better than < 100%. However, I am arguing about the VALUE of that statistic. I think it is not valuable at all, and in fact it is misleading because it infers superiority when the reality is far different (it advantages losing before the final over making the final).

So you're saying all finals' records are without value because one player did not make a final, yet another player did? That is wrong to say in so many ways. First off that logic alone is enough to give value in it by saying player A reaches a final more often when in good form than player B. All statistics have value in some way but that doesn't mean they give a 100% accurate take on how things are.

I could use the same logic as you and say weeks at no.1 and slams are without value because some are obtained more easily than others. Totally wrong, maybe slams or weeks @ no.1 is not a 100% accurate way of measuring who is better at something but to say it is without value is also just as wrong.

I said this earlier in the thread, but this finals record thing is a remarkably similar thing to the H2H debate btw AND the 5th set record one...you can't just completely invalidate all these statistics because there are ways in which they can lead to counterintuitive results.

The answer really is it depends.

Basically this

 

[Towser83]

reasonable poast...

I'm always reasonable lol

 

[Zhilady]

Yeah but what I'm saying is Sampras was just as good at dominating Wimbledon, he just retired earlier. Maybe he could have won Wimbledon again, my feeling is it would have been hard with the grass slowing, but at his best there's no one BETTER at Wimbledon, not even Federer.

Federer has been more dominant in his Wimbledon wins than Sampras was. He won a Wimbledon title without dropping a set, and he won a few more dropping just 1 set. Sampras only managed that one time.

Also, do you really think Sampras could have won Wimbledon any year from 2003-2009 beating Federer?

 

[Towser83]

which guy has better result:
1.who won 7 titles in less time
2.who won 7 titles in more time

True but as I said, though Sampras won his 7th wimbledon at his 12th attempt and Fed took 14 attempts, Sampras had a 13th and 14th attempt and didn't win any more, so in the end they were equal. If Sampras was actually better he would have kept the lead and won an 8th. At one point Fed was ahead in terms of wins/attempts having won 5 straight from 2003 to 2007 so you either can only judge how many sampras won in 14 attempts vs what Federer won in 14

 

[Towser83]

Federer has been more dominant in his Wimbledon wins than Sampras was. He won a Wimbledon title without dropping a set, and he won a few more dropping just 1 set. Sampras only managed that one time.

Also, do you really think Sampras could have won Wimbledon any year from 2003-2009 beating Federer?

It's always tough comparing eras, I'm just talking about amount of wins, pure and simple. On slow grass Sampras would be hindered and he'd already lost to Fed, but if he found prime form again and served unbelievable it's possible he'd score a win, Roddick got close in 2009. But massive edge to Fed

 

[Zhilady]

FFS. People still do not get it, and if you've read through my several posts here suffice to say you will never get it. I never claimed Sampras is better than Federer at Wimbledon. 8>7 + Federer has 11 finals to Sanpras' 7. However, cherrypicked stat or not 7-0 is a better finals record than 8-3. People arguing to me that contexts matters, sure it does, when you're debating who is the better player at Wimbledon that matters, when you're talking about who has the better finals record it's Sampras. Unless you want to say it's unfair to make a comparison because there's not an equal sample size for each player, that's the answer. In a maths test, y'all would fail this straitghtforwar question.

I see you're back to repeating the same nonsense again. A better win % doesn't necessarily mean a better record. They're two different things. Do you also think Gaudio has a better Grand Slam finals record than Sampras?

 

[Zhilady]

It's always tough comparing eras, I'm just talking about amount of wins, pure and simple.

But Federer has more wins than Sampras does.

On slow grass Sampras would be hindered and he'd already lost to Fed, but if he found prime form again and served unbelievable it's possible he'd score a win

In which year?

Roddick got close in 2009

Sampras would have been nearly 39 years at the 2009 Wimbledon. You think a 39-year-old Sampras could have beaten a 29-year-old Federer at Wimbledon?

 

[Deleted member 758560]

it advantages losing before the final over making the final).

a guy can reach the final 4 times and losing every one whereas another guy can reach 2 times and will win both times..in this case guy number 2 forever will be 2-time champion nobody would consider guy 1 a greater player on this tournament only coz he reached final 4 times...and vice versa..guy 1 reach final 4 times winning each, guy 2 lost 2 out of 2 times then guy 1 will be greater..it's misguidng tricky logic..until a guy will play in the final we'll never understand in which list he will be recorded, number of finals don't make you a champion..and also using another logic about had a guy been knocked out in the early rounds he wouldn't lost the final but we know the outcome only after the event and when it favors us we use it, but same analogy can be said about when he won the final(had he been knocked out earlier he woudn't won the final) and then this breaks his record much more

 

[Zhilady]

True but as I said, though Sampras won his 7th wimbledon at his 12th attempt and Fed took 14 attempts, Sampras had a 13th and 14th attempt and didn't win any more, so in the end they were equal.

No, they weren't. Federer had the additional runner-up.

 

[ADuck]

I see you're back to repeating the same nonsense again. A better win % doesn't necessarily mean a better record. They're two different things. Do you also think Gaudio has a better Grand Slam finals record than Sampras?

Gaudio has a better final's record if we're being technical, however it means nothing because 1 match cannot be compared to 18 matches. So in a way people will not recognize that, and rightfully so because having an extremely limited dataset compared with one with 1800% more data is just innaccurate. 7 is at least somewhat comparable to 11, if you believe that is not the case then claim that, but simply saying Federer's final's record is better is wrong.

 

[Zhilady]

Gaudio has a better final's record if we're being technical, however it means nothing because 1 match cannot be compared to 18 matches.

You don't get to choose what means nothing and what means something. If you're going to invoke mathematics to support your arguments, you have to use it uniformly. If Gaudio's "better record" means nothing despite what the math says, Sampras's "better record" also means nothing.

simply saying Federer's final's record is better is wrong.

It's a subjective claim, just like your claim about Sampras's record being better. Unless you can prove that my claim is wrong, I'd suggest you stop calling it wrong.

 

[ADuck]

You don't get to choose what means nothing and what means something. If you're going to invoke mathematics to support your arguments, you have to use it uniformly. If Gaudio's "better record" means nothing despite what the math says, Sampras's "better record" also means nothing.

Incorrect. Comparing Sampras' to Federer's is not the same as comparing Sampras' to Gaudio's for the reasons I have stated. You willfully choosing to ignore the differences between these numbers is why you're not mathematically sound.

 

[Deleted member 758560]

Do you also think Gaudio has a better Grand Slam finals record than Sampras?

you're running to an extreme here..only can be compared abt equal measures but sampras and gaudio different levels by far

 

[timnz]

So you're saying all finals' records are without value because one player did not make a final, yet another player did? That is wrong to say in so many ways. First off that logic alone is enough to give value in it by saying player A reaches a final more often when in good form than player B. All statistics have value in some way but that doesn't mean they give a 100% accurate take on how things are.

I could use the same logic as you and say weeks at no.1 and slams are without value because some are obtained more easily than others. Totally wrong, maybe slams or weeks @ no.1 is not a 100% accurate way of measuring who is better at something but to say it is without value is also just as wrong.

Basically this

Tennis statistics are supposed to measure the achievement of players. Where I don't value the finals statistic is that it actively encourages losses and actually gives the impression that losses are superior to wins eg Lendl beat Connors in the 1985 French Open semi-final and then went onto lose to Wilander in the final. It is highly unlikely that Connors would have beaten Wilander if he had made the final (on European clay, a surface where he won no titles and he never beat Wilander in an official match). McEnroe lost to Wilander in the other Semi-final. But if you focus on the finals statistics - Lendl's statistic went in a negative direction after that tournament whereas Connors statistic was unaffected. So was it better for Lendl to lose the semi rather than win it ? In terms of the statistic in discussion, it would have been better for Lendl to lose that match.

 

[ADuck]

So was it better for Lendl to lose the semi rather than win it ? In terms of the statistic in discussion, it would have been better for Lendl to lose that match.

The better player doesn't have to have a better final's record. Nobody here is saying Sampras is better than Federer.

 

[Zhilady]

Incorrect. Comparing Sampras' to Federer's is not the same as comparing Sampras' to Gaudio's for the reasons I have stated.

I'm not saying they're the same. They're different comparisons. But if you think Sampras's finals record is better than Federer's because of the win %, Gaudio's finals record is also better than Sampras's for the same reason.

You willfully choosing to ignore the differences between these numbers is why you're not mathematically sound.

I'm not mathematically sound because I want you to apply the math uniformly? I think you're not being mentally sound at the moment.

 

[Zhilady]

you're running to an extreme here..only can be compared abt equal measures but sampras and gaudio different levels by far

I'm not even going to engage you. Look up reductio ad absurdum.

 

[Deleted member 758560]

No, they weren't. Federer had the additional runner-up.

saying about titles

 

[Sport]

Sampras ain't the grass GOAT. He still needs to surpass Renshaw's 7 Wimbledon titles:

 

[ADuck]

I'm not saying they're the same. They're different comparisons. But if you think Sampras's finals record is better than Federer's because of the win %, Gaudio's finals record is also better than Sampras's for the same reason.

Read my post again. I never said that wasn't the case, only that having a better final's record in that case is quite meaningless if used to make a comparison about each player's performance as a whole in grand slam finals due to Gaudio only having 1 slam final to Sampras' 18.

 

[Deleted member 758560]

I'm not even going to engage you. Look up reductio ad absurdum.

so stop writing BS for me not engaging you

 

[Zhilady]

so stop writing BS for me not engaging you

I'm sorry, I should have asked you to look up a 1st grade English textbook instead.

 

[Deleted member 758560]

Gaudio's finals record is also better than Sampras's for the same reason.

is also better than federer'..stop writing BS

 

[Zhilady]

Read my post again. I never said that wasn't the case, only that having a better final's record in that case is quite meaningless if used to make a comparison about each player's performance as a whole in grand slam finals due to Gaudio only having 1 slam final to Sampras' 18.

So seeing as how the matter of Gaudio having a better win % than Sampras is meaningless to you, you should see how Sampras having a better win % than Federer is meaningless to others. You can't be right and others can't be wrong just because you have a high opinion of your own opinion. I feel like you should stop overestimating your own intelligence because, frankly, it's lacking.

 

[Zhilady]

is also better than federer'..stop writing BS

is also es is to quetion not no the vone we asked he?

 

[Deon Sanders]

Its very close

But that is to be expected between the two greatest players of all time

In real tennis titles they sit atop at 19 and 14 slam titles

 

[Deleted member 758560]

I'm sorry, I should have asked you to look up a 1st grade English textbook instead.

of course english not my first language so

 

[ADuck]

So seeing as how the matter of Gaudio having a better win % than Sampras is meaningless to you, you should see how Sampras having a better win % than Federer is meaningless to others. You can't be right and others can't be wrong just because you have a high opinion of your own opinion. I feel like you should stop overestimating your own intelligence because, frankly, it's lacking.

I can see in a small way how it might be because 7 is not that close to 11, but still not the same thing as comparing Gaudio and Sampras like you are desperately trying to make out. Read my original quote you responded to and you'll see I already said this.

when you're talking about who has the better finals record it's Sampras. Unless you want to say it's unfair to make a comparison because there's not an equal sample size for each player, that's the answer.

And also might I add I find you disgusting to argue with, just saying. You saying I lack in intelligence is just a sign of your own narcissism.

 

[Deleted member 758560]

is also es is to quetion not no the vone we asked he?

sorry you're female didn't know..will try to not debating with you

 

[Zhilady]

I can see in a small way how it might be because 7 is not that close to 11, but still not the same thing as comparing Gaudio and Sampras like you are desperately trying to make out. Read my original quote you responded to and you'll see I already said this.

I have already admitted that they're not the same thing. They're different comparisons. Are you not reading, or are you just failing to comprehend what you're reading?

What I am saying is that you're not the arbitrator for what is meaningful and what is meaningless. People aren't "wrong" just because they don't adhere to your arbitrary standards when comparing numbers. For you, a 1800% difference is meaningless and a 50% difference is meaningful. For others, even a 1% difference could render something meaningless. Your standards are arbitrary. Nobody has to abide by them.

 

[Deleted member 758560]

In real tennis titles they sit atop at 19 and 14 slam titles

20 and 14

 

[ADuck]

I have already admitted that they're not the same thing. They're different comparisons. Are you not reading, or are you just failing to comprehend what you're reading?

What I am saying is that you're not the arbitrator for what is meaningful and what is meaningless. People aren't "wrong" just because they don't adhere to your arbitrary standards when comparing numbers. For you, a 1800% difference is meaningless and a 50% difference is meaningless. For others, even a 1% difference could render something meaningless. Your standards are arbitrary. Nobody has to abide by them.

So you're finally admitting they're not the same thing, good. I completely understand if people claim the records are not comparable due to it not fitting their own subjective requirements of big enough or equal enough sample size as I've already said many times in this thread. I've held that position since the start of this thread so I don't understand your animosity towards me. Vice versa you should also accept if people believe the sample size is big enough and close enough to compare aswell.

 

[Deleted member 758560]

Gaudio has a better final's record if we're being technical, however it means nothing because 1 match cannot be compared to 18 matches.

true but some people just like kids

 

[Zhilady]

So you're finally admitting they're not the same thing, good.

Not "finally". I'd admitted it before. Not my fault you're not reading:

I'm not saying they're the same. They're different comparisons.

I completely understand if people claim the records are not comparable due to it not fitting their own subjective requirements of big enough or equal enough sample size as I've already said many times in this thread. I've held that position since the start of this thread so I don't understand your animosity towards me. Vice versa you should also accept if people believe the sample size is big enough and close enough to compare aswell.

I said nothing about your standards. I had a problem with you calling people "wrong" for thinking Federer has a better finals record than Sampras. After all, like I said, having a better win % is different to having a better record.

 

[ADuck]

I said nothing about your standards. I had a problem with you calling people "wrong" for thinking Federer has a better finals record than Sampras. After all, like I said, having a better win % is different to having a better record.

I disagree. "Record" relates directly to win loss ratio and the one with the higher win/loss ratio is the one with the "better" record for me. So yes, I'm going to continue calling Federer fans wrong for saying Federer has the "better" record. The best position for them to hang on to is that the comparison is unfair due to the sample size being unequal.

 

[Zhilady]

I disagree. "Record" relates directly to win loss ratio and the one with the higher win/loss ratio is the one with the "better" record for me. So yes, I'm going to continue calling Federer fans wrong for saying Federer has the "better" record. The best position for them to hang on to is that the comparison is unfair due to the sample size being unequal.

Yes. For you. Not according to math, because math says nothing about which is better.

If that's how you're going to work, I am going to start calling you wrong for saying Sampras has the "better" record. You are WRONG.

 

[ADuck]

Yes. For you.

If that's how you're going to work, I am going to start calling you wrong for saying Sampras has the "better" record. You are WRONG.

Well, I see that as the only logical way of defining "better" in this case. The other definition requires rewarding number of matches played and losses over a higher percentage, which is frankly just stupid. Say a guy had a 5-1000 record in 1st round matches, that to you would be better than a guy who had only a 4-0 record in 1st round matches.

 

[Towser83]

But Federer has more wins than Sampras does.

In which year?

Sampras would have been nearly 39 years at the 2009 Wimbledon. You think a 39-year-old Sampras could have beaten a 29-year-old Federer at Wimbledon?

How do I know which year? This is totally hypothetical. And I'm not saying 2009 was the year he could do it, i'm just saying as an example Roddick got close and he's not as good as sampras, Roddick gave a good game in 2004 too

And yes Fed has more wins but he played on for 6 years longer to get that because he has a great longevity and desire for the game, in a 14 year period though they both won 7 titles. It's like Borg retiring with 6 RG titles at the same age Nadal had 6, yes Nadal has more and at this point so much more I doubt Borg ever would have got 11 - but if Nadal had only managed 7 by winning RG last year, I wouldn't rate him that much higher than Borg

 

[Towser83]

No, they weren't. Federer had the additional runner-up.

Ok an additional runner up, for what little that means. In terms of wins they were equal in their first 14 seasons after which Sampras retired

 

[Deleted member 758560]

Well, I see that as the only logical way of defining "better" in this case. The other definition requires rewarding number of matches played and losses over a higher percentage, which is frankly just stupid. Say a guy had a 5-1000 record in 1st round matches, that to you would be better than a guy who had only a 4-0 record in 1st round matches.

it's easy to see who's right here and who's wrong)

 

[Deon Sanders]

20 and 14

19 and 14

 

[Deleted member 758560]

19 and 14

 

[ADuck]

it's easy to see who's right here and who's wrong)

I often find that the person who is more often right than wrong is one that doesn't attempt to insult and belittle others when arguing.

 

[Zhilady]

Ok an additional runner up, for what little that means. In terms of wins they were equal in their first 14 seasons after which Sampras retired

Either way, unless you think retiring is a better achievement than making 3 Wimbledon finals and winning 1 of them, it is pretty obvious that Federer > Sampras at Wimbledon.

 

[Zhilady]

Well, I see that as the only logical way of defining "better" in this case. The other definition requires rewarding number of matches played and losses over a higher percentage, which is frankly just stupid.

If it's stupid, Gaudio has a better finals record than Sampras. We've covered this already.

Say a guy had a 5-1000 record in 1st round matches, that to you would be better than a guy who had only a 4-0 record in 1st round matches.

Yes, a 5-1000 record is better than a 4-0 record in 1st Round matches. The first guy made it past the 1st Round one additional time. Not playing is not an achievement. Making the 2nd Round is.