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
merlinpinpin said:
In this case, Cash trumps Sampras easily. Not only did he win 100% of his finals, too, but he didn't even lose a single set.
Click to expand...
Yes and the same logic that would put Gastón Gaudio as the best performer ever in slam finals - 100% record, no losses. This statisitic (100%) is completely true. The inference from it isn't. The fact is that it is superior for someone to make the final than lose before the final. It is a poor statistic that rewards players for losing before the final over players that make the final.
 
Last edited:
Jonas78 said:
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?
Click to expand...
i'm not trolling) i just tried to explain same thing on and on ;)
 
GabeT said:
Hey, I enjoy trolling others as much as the next guy but this one is a bit ridiculous o_Oo_Oo_O
Click to expand...
i think ridiculous someone else that giving a wrong answer on such a childish question)
 
alexio88 said:
i'm not trolling) i just tried to explain same thing on and on ;)
Click to expand...
Well there is no way losing before the final is stronger then losing the final, so its pretty ridiculous.

Germany is 4-4 in World Cup finals and Italy is 4-2. That means Italy is better although they lost earlier than Germany in the same tournament?
 
Jonas78 said:
Unfortunately it is far from the first time i am presented stats that makes losing R1 stronger than losing a final.
Click to expand...
omg))my head must be exploded now)) ok ..lets again..who cares what happened in r1 r2 or r3))that's only our suggestions and fantasies ..question was only about final who was better in the final you got it?
 
alexio88 said:
omg))my head must be exploded now)) ok ..lets again..who cares what happened in r1 r2 or r3))that's only our suggestions and fantasies ..question was only about final who was better in the final you got it?
Click to expand...
Wait, are you arguing that a 7-2 records in finals is worse than a 7-0 record?
 
alexio88 said:
omg))my head must be exploded now)) ok ..lets again..who cares what happened in r1 r2 or r3))that's only our suggestions and fantasies ..question was only about final who was better in the final you got it?
Click to expand...
Lol. So as i said earlier; when Germany is 4-4 in WC finals and Italy is 4-2, Italy is stronger because what happens before the final doesnt count? Although Italy lost earlier in the same tournaments Germany reached the final?
 
I love this argument. What's better 5-0 or 5-4?

One side says definitely 5-0 is better, perfect on the big stage

Other side laughs and says you're stupid, that's 4 more finals whereas the 5-0 guy lost earlier 4 more times and didn't even make final

Both sides are kind of wrong imo ;)
 
Jonas78 said:
Well there is no way losing before the final is stronger then losing the final, so its pretty ridiculous.
Click to expand...
i didn't say that it's your suggestions who lost in r1 and who didn't ..i don't think about it
 
125downthemiddle said:
I love this argument. What's better 5-0 or 5-4?

One side says definitely 5-0 is better, perfect on the big stage

Other side laughs and says you're stupid, that's 4 more finals whereas the 5-0 guy lost earlier 4 more times and didn't even make final

Both sides are kind of wrong imo ;)
Click to expand...
Well its not a soccer result, where 5-0 obviously is better than 5-4:).

My fav example is AO16. Rafa lost R1. Federer to peak Djoker in the final. There is no way you can use stats in a way that makes the R1 loss to a Mug seem stronger than losing a final to peak Djoker.
 
Jonas78 said:
Lol. So as i said earlier; when Germany is 4-4 in WC finals and Italy is 4-2, Italy is stronger because what happens before the final doesnt count? Although Italy lost earlier in the same tournaments Germany reached the final?
Click to expand...
yes italy is better only about final stats you must see nothing else( thread started about that)
 
Jonas78 said:
Well its not a soccer result, where 5-0 obviously is better than 5-4:).

My fav example is AO16. Rafa lost R1. Federer to peak Djoker in the final. There is no way you can use stats in a way that makes the R1 loss to a Mug seem stronger than losing a final to peak Djoker.
Click to expand...

Yes, of course I see this side of the argument and it is a necessary rebuttal to people who think being perfect in finals is some huge accomplishment more important than number of titles.

However, there are instances where it might say something to me. If Rafa was say 11-4 in RG finals instead of 11-0 I might think he probably isnt as dominant as 11-0 but just there were 2 great players and thats why he kept making finals but one guy was close enough to beat him a few times.

Of course its tricky because you can create hypotheticals, like ok what if Rafa made final and lost in 2009, 15, 16 or after he declines for good...of course it would be better than not making the final.

But that doesn't mean in general on average 11-4 would probably indicate less dominance, even though in an given individual year a finals loss is better than not making the finals.

It's not totally straightforward.
 
125downthemiddle said:
Yes, of course I see this side of the argument and it is a necessary rebuttal to people who think being perfect in finals is some huge accomplishment more important than number of titles.

However, there are instances where it might say something to me. If Rafa was say 11-4 in RG finals instead of 11-0 I might think he probably isnt as dominant as 11-0 but just there were 2 great players and thats why he kept making finals but one guy was close enough to beat him a few times.

Of course its tricky because you can create hypotheticals, like ok what if Rafa made final and lost in 2009, 15, 16 or after he declines for good...of course it would be better than not making the final.

But that doesn't mean in general on average 11-4 would probably indicate less dominance, even though in an given individual year a finals loss is better than not making the finals.

It's not totally straightforward.
Click to expand...
thanks to you for explaining it more in detail..11-0 always will be more impressive than 11-4 yes
 
125downthemiddle said:
Yes, of course I see this side of the argument and it is a necessary rebuttal to people who think being perfect in finals is some huge accomplishment more important than number of titles.

However, there are instances where it might say something to me. If Rafa was say 11-4 in RG finals instead of 11-0 I might think he probably isnt as dominant as 11-0 but just there were 2 great players and thats why he kept making finals but one guy was close enough to beat him a few times.

Of course its tricky because you can create hypotheticals, like ok what if Rafa made final and lost in 2009, 15, 16 or after he declines for good...of course it would be better than not making the final.

But that doesn't mean in general on average 11-4 would probably indicate less dominance, even though in an given individual year a finals loss is better than not making the finals.

It's not totally straightforward.
Click to expand...
I totally agree, you have to look at the larger picture right? Looking at finals alone isnt enough.

Its natural that Rogers fans are the ones who feel they need to speak up, he usually is "the Mug" with these kind of stats. He usually went pretty deep even in his worst years. Even in his worst year ever (2013) he played Nadal 4 times and Djoker 2. How many times Federer got to play Rafa from late 2014-2017, or Djokovic from late 2016 to mid 2018?
 
Last edited:
Jonas78 said:
I totally agree, you have to look at the larger picture right? Looking at finals alone isnt enough.
Click to expand...
yes generally but as soon as this thread was only about finals i'm talking only about it coz maybe someone don't remember sampras at all and against whom he played years ago
 
Jonas78 said:
I totally agree, you have to look at the larger picture right? Looking at finals alone isnt enough.

Its natural that Rogers fans are the ones who feel they need to speak up. He usually went pretty deep even in his worst years. Even in his worst year ever (2013) he played Nadal 4 times and Djoker 2. How many times Federer got to play Rafa from late 2014-2017, or Djokovic from late 2016 to mid 2018?
Click to expand...

Well it also applies to the H2H right. Fed making clay finals losing to Rafa when he Rafa wasnt good enough to make HC finals, then finally when he matched Fed and surpassed him H2H on all surfaces, Fed wasnt in his prime anymore. Made the stats look bad but perhaps unfair. I understand it.

In fact the H2H debate and whether it matters or not is very similar to this one
 
alexio88 said:
yes generally but as soon as this thread was only about finals i'm talking only about it coz maybe someone don't remember sampras at all and against whom he played years ago
Click to expand...
Sampras was great, but the general rule has to be that it is better to reach a final than to lose in earlier rounds.
 
alexio88 said:
of course matters especially if they'll have equal numbers when retire
Click to expand...

agreed, also the 5th set record is a similar dynamic too. People arguing it doesnt matter because you would be worse if you lost in 4 but your 5 set record would be better. But it does matter and it does tell us something (on the whole) even tho individual exceptions can exist? Do you understand @Jonas78 ?

Not meant to challenge you, I seem to agree with you a lot so wondering if Im making sense :)
 
alexio88 said:
thanks to you for explaining it more in detail..11-0 always will be more impressive than 11-4 yes
Click to expand...
The fundamental thing about Grant Slam tennis is that it is 7 matches not 1. And that losing before final is by definition a poorer performance than making the final. Ask the ATP who awards 1200 points for making the final and 720 points for making the semifinal. Lendl's 8-11 is hugely superior to 8-0 (there is no logic that would convince me that Lendl losing those 11 tournaments before the final was a better performance than him making the final).. Croatia was better to lose in the round robin in the world cup than make the final? I don't think so.
 
Jonas78 said:
Sampras was great, but the general rule has to be that it is better to reach a final than to lose in earlier rounds.
Click to expand...
of course better to reach the final than not but this rule confusing you a bit
 
125downthemiddle said:
Well it also applies to the H2H right. Fed making clay finals losing to Rafa when he Rafa wasnt good enough to make HC finals, then finally when he matched Fed and surpassed him H2H on all surfaces, Fed wasnt in his prime anymore. Made the stats look bad but perhaps unfair. I understand it.

In fact the H2H debate and whether it matters or not is very similar to this one
Click to expand...
My thougths exactly:). I really dont have a problem with his H2H or final losses vs Djoker/Rafa. Well almost... Of course the 0-3 at AO pre 2017 and some of the big time chokes at USO vs Djoker sucks. But i am happy with his achievements. Its when his haters present all kinds of stats to make him a Mug i cant help being provocated:eek:. But i guess every fanbase experience these things;).
 
timnz said:
Croatia was better to lose in the round robin in the world cup than make the final? I don't think so.
Click to expand...
don't think so too:Dit means croatia was better throughout the whole tournament except the final
 
timnz said:
The fundamental thing about Grant Slam tennis is that it is 7 matches not 1. And that losing before final is by definition a poorer performance than making the final. Ask the ATP who awards 1200 points for making the final and 720 points for making the semifinal. Lendl's 8-11 is hugely superior to 8-0 (there is no logic that would convince me that Lendl losing those 11 tournaments before the final was a better performance than him making the final).. Croatia was better to lose in the round robin in the world cup than make the final? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

Yes in an indivdual given tournament you are of course correct and 8-11 represents insane longevity. Like I said though losing that many finals could indicate other things going on.

For example, Rafa is what 86-2 at FO. Would his record be more impressive to you if it was 86-32? After all a loss is better then not even participating right? What about 89-32?
 
125downthemiddle said:
agreed, also the 5th set record is a similar dynamic too. People arguing it doesnt matter because you would be worse if you lost in 4 but your 5 set record would be better. But it does matter and it does tell us something (on the whole) even tho individual exceptions can exist? Do you understand @Jonas78 ?

Not meant to challenge you, I seem to agree with you a lot so wondering if Im making sense :)
Click to expand...
Of course i understand:). As i said, looking at finals win/losses alone is meaningless unless you put it in a context. If you only play 7 Wimbledons and win them all you are extremely dominant. If you play 14 Wimbledons and win 7 and lose 7 in early rounds you are not that dominant. Both examples are 7-0. You have to look atcthe bigger picture :).
 
Jonas78 said:
Of course i understand:). As i said, looking at finals win/losses alone is meaningless unless you put it in a context. If you only play 7 Wimbledons and win them all you are extremely dominant. If you play 14 Wimbledons and win 7 and lose 7 in early rounds you are not that dominant. Both examples are 7-0. You have to look atcthe bigger picture :).
Click to expand...
in your example a guy who only played 7 wimbledons is better coz he wasted less attempts to achieve that number(7):Dsampras by the way had less attempts to win number 7 than fed
 
Not that easy of a question but given that it's not hypothetical (I can give it context as we know the players involved) I'd go with Fed because an additional title and 2 out of his 3 finals losses being 5 setters (ie. he didn't surrender his fort easily).
 
zagor said:
Not that easy of a question but given that it's not hypothetical (I can give it context as we know the players involved) I'd go with Fed because an additional title and 2 out of his 3 finals losses being 5 setters (ie. he didn't surrender his fort easily).
Click to expand...

Agreed I'd go with Federer too.

Like the nuanced approach to answering it as it is not as straightforward as some think imo.
 
alexio88 said:
in your example a guy who only played 7 wimbledons is better coz he wasted less attempts to achieve that number(7):D
Click to expand...
No just an example. Lets say you won every Wimbledon 7 years in a row and then got injured and couldnt continue your career. That is the only case where i would agree 7-0 is more impressive than for example 7-4. But usually the case is that you play but lose before the final, and in that situation it is pretty much meaningless to look at finals results alone.
 
zagor said:
I'd go with Fed because an additional title and 2 out of his 3 finals losses being 5 setters (ie. he didn't surrender his fort easily).
Click to expand...
how many years pete played in a great form after his 30+ and how many fed.. of course much more attempts gave fed this additional title;)..but did surrender eventually:D
 
timnz said:
The fundamental thing about Grant Slam tennis is that it is 7 matches not 1. And that losing before final is by definition a poorer performance than making the final. Ask the ATP who awards 1200 points for making the final and 720 points for making the semifinal. Lendl's 8-11 is hugely superior to 8-0 (there is no logic that would convince me that Lendl losing those 11 tournaments before the final was a better performance than him making the final).. Croatia was better to lose in the round robin in the world cup than make the final? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

You're arguing with a troll.
 
alexio88 said:
how many years pete played in a great form after his 30+ and how many fed.. of course much more attempts gave fed this additional title;)..but did surrender eventually:D
Click to expand...

And how did Fed get those few extra opportunities? By switching to a bigger racquet and re-vamping his game. What is Pete's biggest regret? Not switching to a bigger racquet. Do you see my point? It takes a lot of guts and resilience to make such a big change and endure the experimental period.

If this is an argument about prime play and dominance, well Fed won 6 in his prime, Sampras 7 so again they're pretty close given that Fed won 5 in a row (a showcase of dominance). Sampras didn't lose a final but he lost a de-facto final to Krajicek smack in the middle of his prime and in straights to boot.
 
zagor said:
And how did Fed get those few extra opportunities? By switching to a bigger racquet and re-vamping his game. What is Pete's biggest regret? Not switching to a bigger racquet.
Click to expand...
not about prime and dominance..pete biggest regret that he wouldn't have such longevity like fed has that's why he continue to find winning ways..about racquet don't think is the main reason why pete retired so early
 
125downthemiddle said:
Agreed I'd go with Federer too.

Like the nuanced approach to answering it as it is not as straightforward as some think imo.
Click to expand...

How do you feel about 5 titles in a row thing? Fed has that going for him at Wimbledon and USO with the latter being especially interesting because he hasn't won any titles outside that very dominant period.

I think It could be seen as an illustration of a high peak level of play.
 
alexio88 said:
not about prime and dominance..pete biggest regret that he wouldn't have such longevity like fed has that's why he continue to find winning ways..about racquet don't think is the main reason why pete retired so early
Click to expand...

I was saying Pete's words he repeated in several of his interviews since his retirement. It's not something I pulled out of nowhere.
 
zagor said:
How do you feel about 5 titles in a row thing? Fed has that going for him at Wimbledon and USO with the latter being especially interesting because he hasn't won any titles outside that very dominant period.

I think It could be seen as an illustration of a high peak level of play.
Click to expand...

This is also an interesting one; it pits peak dominance vs. longevity/spread out accomplishments. You could make arguments for either being more valuable. The argument for spread out wins is that it would show that the player was good enough for long enough at the particular tournament, that they didn't have to be at their best to win.

But I would tend to agree with you that peak dominance is more impressive as it illustrates an almost invincible level for a sustained period. That is more impressive than a few high peaks thruout the years IMO, especially if given at least a decent number in a row (say 3+)
 
I can't believe people can't see the flaw here. If Federer was somehow knocked out before the final in the 3 instances he was the runner up, he's have 8/8 and show 100%. I think the better measure is Fed reached 11/19 finals and Pete Could reach 7/14 finals
 
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
592
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