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
In this thread:

@ADuck thinking he has his argument right but is terribly wrong.


His stand :7-0 in Finals is 100% which is much more than FRAUD's 8-3 percentage

Simple counter argument:
11>>>>8
If Pete couldn't even make Finals while playing badly ,why in the bluest of hell should I assume that If he somehow found himself in a greater no. of Finals he will win?And maintain Same percentage?

You mean to tell me that there exists a world where a Sampras of 2001 and 2002 aged much lesser than Fraud holds a candle to the Beast Fraud met in the Finals in 2014-15?His goddamn fault that at the age Fraud was making finals and winning them to, he was losing to Bastl.

You are telling that a guy who couldn't even make the semi in 96 is supposed to win the same years final?


You mean to tell me that the PETE who lost to Bastl is going to beat 2008 Ralph in finals?


Reaching Finals >>>>>>>>losing earlier

Longevity along with similar defined period of 100℅ dominace>>>>>>> Slightly longer period of dominace.



Also look at the goddamn poll the question isn't about WB Fs it is about Wimbledon record in general
 
BlueHorizon said:
The question is "what is a better record in W Finals?"
100%>72%
and while we're at it..
83% (Borg) >72%
Click to expand...

As percentages yes but 8 titles is better than 7 and 5 in terms of more trophies on the mantelpiece, ATP points and prize money and creating history.

But let's mention the real point of all these types of thread which have popped up since Nadal LOST it's because <go back 4 words>
 
Raining hopes said:
In this thread:

@ADuck thinking he has his argument right but is terribly wrong.


His stand :7-0 in Finals is 100% which is much more than FRAUD's 8-3 percentage

Simple counter argument:
11>>>>8
If Pete couldn't even make Finals while playing badly ,why in the bluest of hell should I assume that If he somehow found himself in a greater no. of Finals he will win?And maintain Same percentage?

You mean to tell me that there exists a world where a Sampras of 2001 and 2002 aged much lesser than Fraud holds a candle to the Beast Fraud met in the Finals in 2014-15?His goddamn fault that at the age Fraud was making finals and winning them to, he was losing to Bastl.

You are telling that a guy who couldn't even make the semi in 96 is supposed to win the same years final?


You mean to tell me that the PETE who lost to Bastl is going to beat 2008 Ralph in finals?


Reaching Finals >>>>>>>>losing earlier

Longevity along with similar defined period of 100℅ dominace>>>>>>> Slightly longer period of dominace.



Also look at the goddamn poll the question isn't about WB Fs it is about Wimbledon record in general
Click to expand...

I admit this whole argument has me completely puzzled - this isn't like when you understand someone's argument but don't agree with it.

If Sampras had beaten Federer in 01 and made it to the Final but lost this would have diminished his legacy? Why?

And wouldn't this make Stan a better player than Murray because Murray lost a lot of Finals? Surely Murray's multiple Final appearances show he is a better player than Stan - he plays at a higher level more consistently?
 
Jonas78 said:
This must be one of the most stupid threads ever created.

So iceland is better than Croatia in football because they are 0-0 in World Cup Finals and Croatia is 0-1?
Click to expand...
which team will go through the next round(playoff) if they both have same number the points in group stage ..the one that has 7-2 in goals or the one with 7-0 ?;)
 
Fed's losses were to two players that won 17 and 13 slam titles. Two of those losses were when Fed was a month shy of 33 and 34, an age when Pete had long retired. And Old man Fed pushed Peak Djokovic(4-time Wimbledon champ, 13 slam titles) really hard . When Pete was a month shy of 30 and 31, he lost baby-Fed that still hadn't won anything and then some scrub named Bastl. We cannot hold Fed's losses against Djokovic against him. Fed's other loss was to Peak Nadal, a beast on grass from 2006-2010.

As far as Fed's wins go, I'd say that he beat tougher opponents. Roddick was no joke on fast surfaces. I think that Peak Roddick steals a Wimbledon from Pete. Fed's ability to block back 140-145 mph bomb serves is very underrated. Roddick's serves messed with a ton of players, including Djokovic, the best returner of all time.
 
alexio88 said:
of course better but it's only once not so crucial ..these 3 loses outbalance difference in only one win
Click to expand...

Stich (1-0) > Nadal (2-3)
Krajicek (1-0) > Nadal (2-3)
Hewitt (1-0) > Nadal (2-3)
Cash (1-0) > Nadal (2-3)

because [you] these 3 loses outbalance difference in only one win [/you]
 
sarmpas said:
Stich (1-0) > Nadal (2-3)
Krajicek (1-0) > Nadal (2-3)
Hewitt (1-0) > Nadal (2-3)
Cash (1-0) > Nadal (2-3)

because [you] these 3 loses outbalance difference in only one win [/you]
Click to expand...
misleading comparison;)
 
Hitman said:
7-2 means more finals.
Click to expand...
by your logic a guy with 6-7 record is better player in finals than a guy with 5-0 record;) but that's not correctly to compare their records because first guy played much more finals than second just like you said about rafa and stan before whereas fed and sampras a gap is tiny here
 
alexio88 said:
by your logic a guy with 6-7 record is better player in finals than a guy with 5-0 record;) but that's not correctly to compare their records because first guy played much more finals than second just like you said about rafa and stan before whereas fed and sampras a gap is tiny here
Click to expand...

We are just going to have to disagree on this one. I am sticking with my point, and you can stick with yours. :)
 
Is losing to a journeyman Bastl in 2nd round better than losing to 4 times champion Novak in final? You got your answer there.
 
Jonas78 said:
If you cant see the difference between my example and yours i cant help you.
Click to expand...
no i see very well and can say your example is a malarkey..how can you face 0-0 with anything else, that's nothing zero delirium
 
ADuck said:
The question is who is better in Wimbledon finals. The answer is obviously Sampras. Look at the question fools
Click to expand...
345lsog.jpg
 
timnz said:
Just don’t understand the logic that sampras’ semi in 1992 (his best result after his 7 wins) is better than federer’s 8th Wimbledon win. Or sampras’ quarter final placing (his next best result) is better than one of Federer’s runner ups? Or sampras’ 4th round placing (his next best) is better than another of Federer’s runner-ups or sampras’ 2nd round finish (his next best) is better than another of federer’s Runner-ups?
Click to expand...

It's the same logic that runs around in circles trying to account for the "fact" that 17 > 20.

Hence, 7 > 8
And 0 > 3

Easy peasy, you just need to be serious deluded or mathematically challenged, and everything becomes clear. :rolleyes:
 
alexio88 said:
no i see very well and can say your example is a malarkey..how can you face 0-0 with anything else, that's nothing zero delirium
Click to expand...
What??

You can play 100 Grand Slams and win 0 titles and reach 0 finals, thats 0-0. Of course 0-1 is better than 0-0, it means you have reached a slam final while the other one hasnt. And of course 2-1 is better than 2-0, it means you won 2 slams ans reached another final, while the other player won 2 slams but didnt reach another final.

Are you trolling me?
 
What does even 8-11 and 7-0 mean? If it means Fedr won 8 out of 11 finals, its a very good achievement by Sampras to win 7 out of 0 finals played. How do you win a final you dont play?
 
Incomplete data set based on sample size disparities. After 2002 would Sampras be 7,8,9-0 at Wimbledon finals if he kept playing? Of course not; as Christ himself Roger Federer had surpassed him. One caveat, in his prime Sampras did not lose a final at wimby, fed did.
 
Jonas78 said:
And of course 2-1 is better than 2-0, it means you won 2 slams ans reached another final, while the other player won 2 slams but didnt reach another final.
Click to expand...
of course not 2-0 better:Donly reaching the final don't make a tangible result ..you must win or lose then it will be result only ..but you guys counting the win forgetting about the lose ;)only combination win+lose (and not this myth about reaching the final etc.)gives you a clear picture about who is better here
 
alexio88 said:
of course not 2-0 better:Donly reaching the final don't make a tangible result ..you must win or lose then it will be result only ..but you guys counting the win forgetting about the lose ;)only combination win+lose (and not this myth about reaching the final etc.)gives you a clear picture about who is better here
Click to expand...
Ok im pretty sure youre trolling me;). But if you actually arent, i will try one last time to explain it to you. Player A plays 3 slams, he wins two and loses R1 in the third. Player B plays 3 slams, wins two and loses in final in the third. So you say that its better for Player A to lose R1 than in the final, because than you can say 2-0 instead of 2-1? Even though player B actually has won 6 matches to get to the final, player A has done better by losing R1?
 
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
3K
TearTheRoofOff
TearTheRoofOff
A
  • Poll Poll
Who has the best record in wimbledon finals Federer or Sampras
Replies
12
Views
583
FHtennisman
FHtennisman
P
  • Poll Poll
Who is the Greatest Wimbledon player of all time?
6 7 8
Replies
369
Views
30K
NadalAgassi
N
JennyS
Federer vs Sampras and Borg in Grand Slams
Replies
42
Views
4K
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
13K
Neptune
Neptune
Back
Top