Frankly speaking, none of the Pete's finalist would be able to stop Federer of 2003-09 and he would not only have 7-0, but consecutive as well. Even Fed of 2012, 14, 15, and 17 would be good enough to stop all of the Pete's Wimbledon rivals.
Which ones exactly? Two five set losses and a four set loss with an epic 2nd set. Doesn't sound pretty bad, especially not the losses to Djokovic. And Fed has yet to get walloped in straight sets by anybody at Wimbledon since winning his first title there. Sampras lost in straight sets to Krajicek.
This is all speculation. We don't know how Fed will fare against the likes of Becker, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Stich, Henman, etc. One can also claim that Pete would never lose to a clay courter like Nadal or hard courter like Djokovic in his own backyard. The fact is Fed has lost to those guys in his own backyard and they didn't even play grass court game to beat him.
Anything that says that 7>8 is speculation only. There is absolutely no way 7-0 can ever become greater than 8-(Whatever).
Similarly, any claim of Pete doing better against any two-digit slam winner is also not known. Take this simple thing. Pete is 20-14 against Agassi who is a 8-slam winner. By very simple arithmetic (as in 7-out-of-7 is better percentage than 8-out-of-11), against a twice Agassi player, like Nadal, his losses would double and wins halve, which makes it really worst. But good thing is simple arithmetic is nonsense. Federer has stomped on all lesser players he faced other than Nadal and Djokovic.
LOL at clay courter like Nadal. You know that Pete had lost to a clay courter on grass in a best-of-five, don't you? Nadal has more USO slams than any player in the 90's whose name is not Sampras, and Pete has only two more than Nadal. Now, please look at how many slams Pete won in his backyard, ONLY 5. Fact is Pete had faced too less of greats as Nadal and Djokovic.
If Pete was straight-setted in the middle of his 7 Wimbledons to a single slam wonder in Krajiceck, any other claims of backyard means jack
And let us not even go to the USO where he lost to so many sundry players.
On today's grass, clay courter Nadal would pose lots of issues to Sampras.
Ivanisevic was never mentally strong enough to take down Sampras. Federer has always been mentally tougher than Goran, so I doubt he loses to him.
If Sampras was more dominant, why couldn't he ever win 5 in a row? Or why couldn't he ever win it without dropping a set?
Idk, maybe Sampras wasn't as dominant? Never claimed Sampras was more dominant than Federer. That's an argument for another day.
Federer is better than sampras at winning finals. fed won 8 samp won 7. rite.
So he couldn't even make the finals all those other times? Fail.
It was QF, 4F, 2R - I just don't understand why this is even a question. How is that better than 3 runner-ups?
For me, the point of this question is to evaluate which player was the better finals player, NOT who is better at wimbledon or who is better in general. Now if Fed had gone 7-0, then 7-3, then 8-3, then I would admit you had a point, as Fed is only adding on more finals which Sampras never played. However, Fed never made it to 7-0, at best he was at 5-0, after 7 finals he was at 6-1. So given that, statistically, Sampras was better IN Wimbledon finals. You can argue his opponents were not the same, that would be valid, however on this thread I only see people concerned with Federer being the greater player, which is totally a separate question. Personally, when Fed got to 7-1, for me he was already the best player at Wimbledon. 7 W and 1 RU beats 7 W and 0 RU, yet it's not the better finals record.
can you please unpack what "7 W and 1 RU beats 7 W and 0 RU, yet it's not the better record" I am not sure I understand that.
I'm not sure how much further I can explain it. Read my previous posts if you don't understand. Sampras' record in Wimbledon finals is superior to that of Federer's. Stop thinking what could, or would have happened if this happened or that happened, just look at the numbers. The question is who has the better record IN Wimb finals, the question relates directly to the numbers IN THE FINALS. Not before them. We have 7 data points from Sampras, and 11 data points from Federer, if you wish to make things fairer, take the first 7 data points from Federer instead of all 11.
How do you first access Sampras performance in the next 4 finals that he never reached then? When better finals player does not reach the extra finals in the first place, how is the generalization then valid based on the fewer number of finals? You compare with another 7 time finalist like Becker, and we easily get who is the better one. That also begs another question: How is the better player of Wimbledon possibly not be the better player of the finals? Can you get your post-graduate by failing in the graduate course?
Now, how is getting down 0-3 and then getting 8-3 better than 8-0 and then 8-3, or 8-3 or any order? No, what is the basis of giving the benefit-of-doubt to Sampras when he never reached the extra finals? You can't simply put everything under the "Sampras never played for the finals" carpet. It was never the case that he was on the brink of semis holding match points and then realised that there is no way he can win the finals and hence gave up completely. Let us face it, Sampras was never closer to the 8th title, EVER. So, this 7-0 finals advantage is worthless in accessing the performance in other finals.
Statistics, in certain paradigms, also gives Sampras the probability of failing in the 8th finals.
If you want to really use Statistics, you need to complete the framework too. Strictly speaking in the probabilistic sense, Sampras reaching the 8th final is way too lesser than that of 8th for Fed, when in turn implies that Sampras would have lost each of the 4 extra finals if he had made it. Do you accept it because you are forcing probability and statistics here which implies what I have said here.
The very same numbers say that the probability of Sampras reaching 8th final is 0. Is this difficult for you to understand? If you still don't get this, look up to the definition of Empirical Probability.
And since we always take about the numbers conditional on the event of reaching the extra finals, by empirical probabilities Fed still finishes ahead.
Your argument would have been valid in 2009, and unfortunately, it is 2017 now. You can't be simply using 7 for Pete and 11 for Fed and not do the conditional probabilities.
You don't. We only have what we're given, 7 finals from Sampras, and 11 finals from Federer.
Because "better finals player" is not a better semi-finals player or quaterfinals player, or any round before the final's player for that matter. And we are speaking statistically of course. Statistics are not always a good measure of telling us who is better at what. But this is what they say.
Serious question? Winning Wimbledon requires you to win all 7 rounds not, just the finals. (<-- Btw, don't take this out of context) Federer is obviously better, on average compared to Sampras, at winning the first 6 rounds, than winning the the last round. Whilst Sampras, is not as good as Federer at winning the first 6 rounds, BUT, he is better than Federer than winning the finals when he gets there.
Statistically, there is no difference, however if we are to limit Federer's data points to that of Sampras', we are not going to take any random 7 data points, we're going to take his first 7.
There is no "benefit of the doubt" there are just numbers, and these are what the numbers tell us. If you don't like the fact that Sampras didn't play 11 finals, then don't compare them to begin with.
Yes, but we're not here to guess what could have happened.
If, if, if. Doesn't matter, finals are different from previous rounds, and this question addresses them as different from each other, so we cannot presume if he would have lost based on previous rounds.
I know? So what? Reaching a final is a totally different thing. Playing in the final is what we're looking at.
Huh?
If you don't wish to do this, either compare the records as they are and admit Sampras' is statistically superior, or say that we cannot compare the two because the number of finals they reached is not the same.
For someone that adores the dumb "weak era" argument you're doing a poor job here.
Why then report numbers of convenience? What we are always given is that Sampras never reached the 8th final and hence he can't be evaluated on the Federer terms. The 7 finals of Sampras can always be found in the 7 finals that Federer won. Is this difficult to see? It is always known that in sports once you are past the prime and peak, your earlier 100% record matters for jack. So, Sampras 7-out-of-7 as 100% is NEVER comparable with Fed's 8-out-of-11.
No, you are skipping the data and probabilistic rules as it suits you
Can you reach more finals and lesser semi-finals? If you a good finals player, you ought to reach more finals in the first place. There is no getting around this. And why are you so adamantly ruling out that since Sampras never reached that 8th final, your choice is completely arbitrary too, you can't compare Fed's extra finals performance in any ways with Pete's.
When you are limiting, you need to pick the same criteria. You choose Pete's best 7 performance out of 14. Similarly, you need to stick to the same measure and pick Fed's best 7 performance out of 19. Sampras' 7 are random 7 data points, and not merely 7 finals. You can't say first 7 as we already know 8-3 in any order is just the same.
The same can be said other way round too. If you have picked Sampras's best 7, pick Fed's best 7 and not something that is of convenience to you.
Sorry, when you use Statistics, you must guess. Or don't use it.
It matters, and certainly. The moment you want to interpret 7/7 as better than 8/11, I would always pose the question of the possibility of that damned 8th final. We all know that Pete was never getting another final, so the question of comparing extra finals will always give the advantage to Fed.
Are you winning a final without reaching it? They are totally connected.
Yeah!
The moment you are talking about statistical superiority, you need to get so many other things in the right framework. You are arbitrarily comparing Sampras's 7 best performances with Fed's not-so-7-best performances and inferring the superiority. Either pick 7 best performances, or pick 11 best performances. Fed ties the first criteria and overwhelms in the second one.
Not really. Nobody has won 6 slams in a row in the open era, including Nadal at FO.
Sampras lost in the middle of his 7 to a mere Krajieck. Federer does not lose to any of the finalists that Pete faced and he handles red-hot players way better than Sampras. The Sampras that lost to Federer and Bastl was not reaching the finals in 2004-05, so it does not matter whether Fed has losing H2H or anything. Losing to Nadal in the 5th 7-9 is anytime better than losing to Krajieck. On the contrary, on the slow grass, Sampras might not even become the grass great that he truly and worthily is.
Thats awesome. Sampras is undoubtedly a grass great for another millenium or two
Wtf is this? And also you failed to explain wth you meant by "And since we always take about the numbers conditional on the event of reaching the extra finals, by empirical probabilities Fed still finishes ahead." You just answered "Yeah" real mature man. Instead of just pulling random terms out from your behind, why not try explaining them? Otherwise your words are lost, and you're just arguing for the sake of arguing, pathetic.
The win rate can of course be compared, however if you think 7 is too different from 11, then don't compare them to begin with.
Well no ****, because he played MORE finals! Doesn't mean ****. 7/7 > 8/11. You do know those are fractions right? and 7/7 = 1 as in 100% and 8/11 = 0.727272 roughly 73%? Meaning 7/7 is mathetically MORE than 8/11 ? No? Flew right over your head again right? Doesn't matter how you try and spin it, facts are facts mate.
If you don't want to compare them, don't compare them lmao. But here we are, comparing them. These are the numbers. Also this is exactly why I offered to use Fed's first 7 matches when he WAS in his prime to be more fair.
Lmao, what's the point talking to you? Everything goes right over your head. I'm using what EXACTLY what was given in the question. 7/7 or 8/11. This is hilarious. Being a good finals player HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH REACHING MORE FINALS. When will you understand that? Being a good finals player means exactly how well you perform in finals, and not how many finals you reach.No, you are skipping the data and probabilistic rules as it suits you
Why am I so adamantly ruling out what? Wth does this paragraph even mean? It's like you're responding to something else entirely. If I can't compare Fed's extra finals performance, then I'll use Fed's first 7 data points, or use any string of 7 points in the correct order they were played. W W W W W L W W L L W. There's nothing there which beats 7-0. Closest 7 points are 6-1. Worst is 4-3. You can't just pick and choose whatever points you want as that just ruins whatever statistics even means. Right now Rafa has a GS SF record of 23/26, whereas Fed has a record of 29/42. Rafa's record is obviously superior to that of Roger's as he has a much higher win percentage. Just because Roger has more wins out of more SF's doesn't mean he has a better record. What matters is the average, and Rafa has a better average, and therefore a better record.
Not really, not at all. It's not "convenient" lmao, stop being salty, it's just what we have. I'm not using Sampras' best i'm using them in the order they were played in. Same with Federer. Sorry this is a really poor argument.
Lmao, take things out of context why don't you. We're not guessing how Sampras would have performed in an 8th final. BTW, if we do guess basing it off his current record of 100%, he wins again.
It doesn't. Saying it does shows 0 understanding of what we're talking about. I'm talking numbers here, you're trying to make up false hypotheticals.
This shows you do not know what you're talking about.
Wrong, i'm using Sampras' first 7 performances. Not his best performances.
First of all. No i'm not. Those are the stats. Nadal has a better win rate percentage in semi-finals. Gosh how do people not get this. Second of all, I fully expect Rafa to have won the semi-finals he never reached as he performs way better in bigger matches like these.
So you're penalizing Roger for going deeper than Rafa in GS's. Good job....
