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
Fedforever said:
So, in other words, Rafa performed better in FO 09 than Roger did, even though he went out in the fourth round because if he had got to the final he would have won it.

|Jane Austen would have had fun with you "Had I ever learned the piano, I would have been a great proficient" [Pride and Prejudice]
Click to expand...
No
 
mike danny said:
So you're penalizing Roger for going deeper than Rafa in GS's. Good job....

Let me remind you that Federer reached 26 semis much earlier than Rafa. And he was 22/26 in semis which wasn't really that different to Rafa's record.

Roger played past his prime so he worsened his record. Nadal won't worsen it because he doesn't reach GS semis when in poor form.
Click to expand...
No. I'm saying Nadal has a better win rate in SF's than Roger does. You can disagree with that but you'd be stupid to.

Edit. Sorry failed to read your last line. If that's true, then that sucks for Roger but over the course of their entire careers this is what the numbers say. You can say the numbers are ****e, because of the reasons you listed, and you have valid points, however it would still be technically incorrect to say that Federer has a better GS SF record than Nadal.
 
Last edited:
ADuck said:
No. I'm saying Nadal has a better win rate in SF's than Roger does. You can disagree with that but you'd be stupid to.
Click to expand...
Because he has reached less semis than Federer in the first place. If Fed had retired after 2010 with a 22/26 semi record, you would have said that Fed would have certainly won most of the semis because of his great semi record.
 
mike danny said:
Because he has reached less semis than Federer in the first place. If Fed had retired after 2010 with a 22/26 semi record, you would have said that Fed would have certainly won most of the semis because of his great semi record.
Click to expand...
Let's say for the sake of this argument his record was actually 25/26 and retires in 2010. I would say Fed has a better record in GS SF's. Because he has a higher win rate. That is all. I can say after I said that, that this doesn't take into account that Federer retired early if I wanted to, but it still wouldn't change the facts.
 
This is a stupid thread. How 1 more title and 3 more runner-ups can conceivably be worse, is beyond my understanding.

People should understand that making a slam final is an excellent result. You are basically better than 126 of the other 127 guys in the field.

This is typical idiotic ************* logic. Losing in semis/finals is somehow worse for them than going out early in R1 or R2.
 
BlueClayGOAT said:
This is a stupid thread. How 1 more title and 3 more runner-ups can conceivably be worse, is beyond my understanding.

People should understand that making a slam final is an excellent result. You are basically better than 126 of the other 127 guys in the field.

This is typical idiotic ************* logic. Losing in semis/finals is somehow worse for them than going out early in R1 or R2.
Click to expand...
Probably the same ones who said that Stan reaching the RG finals and losing was a negative mark on him.

The VB love their mental gymnastics.
 
NatF said:
Among the stupid responses in this thread this ranks near the top.
Click to expand...
At least I am at the top and not an absolute scum-sucking idiot. Sampras' era was stronger. Fed is great but he got his first 4-5 Wimbledon crowns against an easy field. You guys hold no punches when "online".
 
a10best said:
At least I am at the top and not an absolute scum-sucking idiot. Sampras' era was stronger. Fed is great but he got his first 4-5 Wimbledon crowns against an easy field. You guys hold no punches when "online".
Click to expand...

Now you're stupid and vulgar, congrats. Federer's era was stronger and his competition was tougher. You can suck on that :D
 
BlueClayGOAT said:
This is a stupid thread. How 1 more title and 3 more runner-ups can conceivably be worse, is beyond my understanding.

People should understand that making a slam final is an excellent result. You are basically better than 126 of the other 127 guys in the field.

This is typical idiotic ************* logic. Losing in semis/finals is somehow worse for them than going out early in R1 or R2.
Click to expand...
Better than 6-7 other players you play and that's if there are no early retirements or Djoke-walkovers. You could also have a losing record against players ranked #23, #47 and lose again.
 
NatF said:
Now you're stupid and vulgar, congrats. Federer's era was stronger and his competition was tougher. You can suck on that :D
Click to expand...
there is none left, since you did it ALL. Fed's era only got strong starting in 2008-2009.
Are you blind and dumb?
 
NatF said:
So you say. Doesn't sound like you have a chip on our shoulder at all. I'm sure you're totally impartial.
Click to expand...
impartial? Not really . Fed is my all-time fave. Pete would be my 2nd. If he had beat Djokovic in both or one of these last two Wimbledons, then he gets my "stupid" vote.
 
a10best said:
impartial? Not really . Fed is my all-time fave. Pete would be my 2nd. If he had beat Djokovic in both or one of these last two Wimbledons, then he gets my "stupid" vote.
Click to expand...

But he did beat Djokovic in 2012. All-time favourite though right?
 
losing in 5 sets with a bad back in 14' and then 4 sets following year wasn't good to see. Fed beat Murray in 2012.
If you have a Pete photo on your avatar, you probably like Pete. So, naturally you'd like Fed who has every shot.
 
Seeing as Federer has made eleven finals & won eight of them over a 14 year period while Sampras made seven finals & won them all over a period of eight years I say Federer is better because of his longevity.
 
ADuck said:
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.
Click to expand...

This here is a great example of why statistics should only be used by those who understand them. Otherwise- like in this instance- it's like giving an assault rifle to a chimpanzee.
Stats are great- I love them. If used correctly, with good, wide-ranging data, and proper analysis and filters to balance the effect of aberrations, statistics can be extremely useful.
But that level of maturity and subtlety is beyond a lot of people who pull out numbers from their butts and try to prove asinine assumptions.

If a guy made 10 semis and won all of them, @ADuck would effectively rate him better than a guy who made 30 semis and won 25 of those. The 'Gosh how do people not get this' makes you look like somebody who just learned today what percentages were. Calm down.

The second part of your post- about 'fully expecting Rafa to win the semis he never reached'- is so ludicrously stupid that I'm not going to comment any further about it.
 
a10best said:
losing in 5 sets with a bad back in 14' and then 4 sets following year wasn't good to see. Fed beat Murray in 2012.
If you have a Pete photo on your avatar, you probably like Pete. So, naturally you'd like Fed who has every shot.
Click to expand...

Well he beat Djokovic in the SF in 2012. I assumed you were talking about the draw seeing as you said 'field' and not just finals

Courier, Rafter, Agassi, Pioline, Ivanisevic, Becker aren't a more threatening group than Philippoussis, Roddick, Nadal and Murray on grass- not considering the stage Becker was in his career. Ivanisevic stands out the most from Pete's competition and was his main rival on grass, but he wasn't the best big match player.

thrust said:
True, but what is the % of times played and titles won?
Click to expand...

Irrelevant when Federer has played on many years past when Sampras retired. I doubt even if Sampras had competed in another 10 Wimbledons whether he could have bagged another.
 
ADuck said:
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.
Click to expand...
Slams are 7 matches not 1. Yes, statistically you are right, but in full respect to you, the statistic is such a minor one (because of its obvious flaws). The flaws such as:

Player A: Competes in 8 Wimbledon's - wins 7 and loses in the first round in the eight.
Player B: Competes in 8 Wimbledon's - wins 7 and is runner-up in the 8th.

Player A performs better according to your 'finals' statistic. However, no-one in the world would prefer Player A's performance over Player B's.
 
Sampras was finished at 31, was it? Federer is still going at 36 and Wimbledon champ. Would Pete have still have been reaching finals at 32, 33 etc? Very doubtful if he was losing early to the likes of Georg Bastl in 2002.

I know Pete had a 7-0 strike rate in finals, but Federer has 8 Wimbledons now to Pete's 7, more finals, and a win over Sampras on the faster courts in 2001.
 
BlueClayGOAT said:
The second part of your post- about 'fully expecting Rafa to win the semis he never reached'- is so ludicrously stupid that I'm not going to comment any further about it.
Click to expand...

I stupidly wasted some time this afternoon trying to convince some lovestruck teenager that Fed and Nadal are probably not having a secret affair. Frankly, that's beginning to look like a rational viewpoint compared to this.
 
BlueClayGOAT said:
This here is a great example of why statistics should only be used by those who understand them. Otherwise- like in this instance- it's like giving an assault rifle to a chimpanzee.
Stats are great- I love them. If used correctly, with good, wide-ranging data, and proper analysis and filters to balance the effect of aberrations, statistics can be extremely useful.
But that level of maturity and subtlety is beyond a lot of people who pull out numbers from their butts and try to prove asinine assumptions.

If a guy made 10 semis and won all of them, @ADuck would effectively rate him better than a guy who made 30 semis and won 25 of those. The 'Gosh how do people not get this' makes you look like somebody who just learned today what percentages were. Calm down.

The second part of your post- about 'fully expecting Rafa to win the semis he never reached'- is so ludicrously stupid that I'm not going to comment any further about it.
Click to expand...
Point out how/where I'm wrong in my argument instead of trying to belittle me personally. That's what you, a coward does. Trying to belittle my argument, by insulting me directly. Now it's pretty obvious you were trying to bait me into replying to your previous post lol. I'm sure you were upset when I did not give you such attention. Now point out where I'm wrong, with context, then we'll talk :)
 
Last edited:
timnz said:
Slams are 7 matches not 1. Yes, statistically you are right, but in full respect to you, the statistic is such a minor one (because of its obvious flaws). The flaws such as:

Player A: Competes in 8 Wimbledon's - wins 7 and loses in the first round in the eight.
Player B: Competes in 8 Wimbledon's - wins 7 and is runner-up in the 8th.

Player A performs better according to your 'finals' statistic. However, no-one in the world would prefer Player A's performance over Player B's.
Click to expand...
You're not wrong. As I said earlier I much prefer to have Federer's winrate than Sampras', even though Sampras' is better.

Edit: The statistic does have its uses though. You could argue (i'm not going to don't worry) that Sampras has better mental strength in finals or if using it for someone like Rafa, you could say as the Rafa winrate increases in the later rounds of Wimbledon, the surface slows down. So statistics have a use, but it really depends on what your argument is.
 
Last edited:
Tennis_Hands said:
Anyone claiming 7-7 is better than 8-11 has no clue about the sport, so, depending on my mood, will get the stick one way or the other.
:cool:
Click to expand...
7 out 7 wins hands down if u are betting, stock market, cryptocurrency. I don't see Rafa or Novak beating peak Pete at Wimbledon and I don't see Fed losing to Pete's Wimbledon opponents.
7-7 - 100%
8-11 - 72%
 
Last edited:
a10best said:
7 out 7 wins hands down if u are betting, stock market, cryptocurrency. I don't see Rafa or Novak beating peak Pete at Wimbledon and I don't see Fed losing to Pete's Wimbledon opponents.
Click to expand...

This has already been explained even in this thread, so I don't feel like repeating anything just for the sake of the argument.

:cool:
 
ADuck said:
You're not wrong. As I said earlier I much prefer to have Federer's winrate than Sampras', even though Sampras' is better.

Edit: The statistic does have its uses though. You could argue (i'm not going to don't worry) that Sampras has better mental strength in finals or if using it for someone like Rafa, you could say as the Rafa winrate increases in the later rounds of Wimbledon, the surface slows down. So statistics have a use, but it really depends on what your argument is.
Click to expand...
I can't agree with your last point. Winning 7-0 in Finals at Wimbledon says nothing at all on how Sampras would go if he made a 8th final. Too many other variables, his form, his opponent etc. The fact that he wasn't able to make an eighth final is what we actually do know (his eighth best performance, at Wimbledon, was the 1992 Wimbledon where he lost in the Semi's to Goran).

Federer was 7-0 in slam finals at the end of January 2006. The fact that he went on to lose 10 finals after that (but win another 12 slams at the same time), does it mean that he lost his mental strength after then?
 
timnz said:
I can't agree with your last point. Winning 7-0 in Finals at Wimbledon says nothing at all on how Sampras would go if he made a 8th final. Too many other variables, his form, his opponent etc. The fact that he wasn't able to make an eighth final is what we actually do know (his eighth best performance, at Wimbledon, was the 1992 Wimbledon where he lost in the Semi's to Goran).

Federer was 7-0 in slam finals at the end of January 2006. The fact that he went on to lose 10 finals after that (but win another 12 slams at the same time), does it mean that he lost his mental strength after then?
Click to expand...
Before I reply, could you point out which specific point you disagree with?
 
ADuck said:
Point out how/where I'm wrong in my argument instead of trying to belittle me personally. That's what you, a coward does. Trying to belittle my argument, by insulting me directly. Now it's pretty obvious you were trying to bait me into replying to your previous post lol. I'm sure you were upset when I did not give you such attention. Now point out where I'm wrong, with context, then we'll talk :)
Click to expand...

I already explained where you are wrong. Looking at just the finals performance is disingenuous because it effectively rewards a player who was able to win all his finals but lost early the other times compared to a player who has more titles but lost a few of his finals.

I'm not trying to bait you into anything. I've just had it with people using spurious stats and meaningless buzzwords to try and prove sports arguments.
In tennis, tournaments are played in a knockout format. This means that every round is just as important as the other 6 in a statistical sense.
 
BlueClayGOAT said:
I already explained where you are wrong. Looking at just the finals performance is disingenuous because it effectively rewards a player who was able to win all his finals but lost early the other times compared to a player who has more titles but lost a few of his finals.

I'm not trying to bait you into anything. I've just had it with people using spurious stats and meaningless buzzwords to try and prove sports arguments.
In tennis, tournaments are played in a knockout format. This means that every round is just as important as the other 6 in a statistical sense.
Click to expand...
Notice i'm not trying to prove that Sampras is better? All i'm trying to prove is that 7/7 is mathematically recognized as a better win rate than 8/11, but you guys cannot grasp that. Pinpoint where exactly you disagree otherwise I can't really answer you properly, my words are probably wasted.
 
ADuck said:
Point out how/where I'm wrong in my argument instead of trying to belittle me personally. That's what you, a coward does. Trying to belittle my argument, by insulting me directly. Now it's pretty obvious you were trying to bait me into replying to your previous post lol. I'm sure you were upset when I did not give you such attention. Now point out where I'm wrong, with context, then we'll talk :)
Click to expand...

As for the second part of your post about Rafa magically winning all the semis he never made, I'm sorry, but I have no rational counter to offer to that statement because it is hilariously harebrained. It doesn't say anything about anything and is based on no rational thesis or data. It's an impossible assertion to prove in any significant sense.
 
ADuck said:
Notice i'm not trying to prove that Sampras is better? All i'm trying to prove is that 7/7 is mathematically recognized as a better win rate than 8/11, but you guys cannot grasp that. Pinpoint where exactly you disagree otherwise I can't really answer you properly, my words are probably wasted.
Click to expand...

Yes, 7/7 is a higher number than 8/11. Fractions exist. Great discovery, thanks. What does it tell you about Sampras and Federer in any non-trivial sense as players? Nothing.

The question was which among the two is a better achievement. Which would you take if offered a choice?
 
BlueClayGOAT said:
As for the second part of your post about Rafa magically winning all the semis he never made, I'm sorry, but I have no rational counter to offer to that statement because it is hilariously harebrained. It doesn't say anything about anything and is based on no rational thesis or data. It's an impossible assertion to prove in any significant sense.
Click to expand...
That point was entirely separate from my argument, you can criticize that point if you wish, but still it is separate.
 
BlueClayGOAT said:
Yes, 7/7 is a higher number than 8/11. Fractions exist. Great discovery, thanks. What does it tell you about Sampras and Federer in any non-trivial sense as players? Nothing.

The question was which among the two is a better achievement. Which would you take if offered a choice?
Click to expand...
If that was the question (which it isn't) my answer is Federer. The question is exactly as stated:
What is a better record in Wimbledon Finals?
 
ADuck said:
If that was the question (which it isn't) my answer is Federer. The question is exactly as stated:
What is a better record in Wimbledon Finals?
Click to expand...
If the OP wanted to know which ratio is better, they could have simply used a calculator. No need to post a thread on TTW.
The premise of the question is clearly meant to be - as the subsequent discussion shows- asking which achievement is the greater one.
 
BlueClayGOAT said:
If the OP wanted to know which ratio is better, they could have simply used a calculator. No need to post a thread on TTW.
The premise of the question is clearly meant to be - as the subsequent discussion shows- asking which achievement is the greater one.
Click to expand...
That's you being presumptuous. I'll take the question as it was asked.
 
ADuck said:
Notice i'm not trying to prove that Sampras is better? All i'm trying to prove is that 7/7 is mathematically recognized as a better win rate than 8/11, but you guys cannot grasp that. Pinpoint where exactly you disagree otherwise I can't really answer you properly, my words are probably wasted.
Click to expand...

Essentially you would then agree that Pat Cash has a better Wimbledon finals record than Federer.
 
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
382
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