lessthanjake
Semi-Pro
Roger Federer is clearly better than Pete Sampras was. Obviously, the most basic reason for this is that Federer has 15 slams compared to 14 for Sampras. But there are many other reasons for this, which I will now analyze.
1. Sampras was never as consistent as Federer is
Roger Federer has currently made 21 straight slam semifinals. He also has separate streaks of 10 slam finals and 6 slams finals in a row.
Pete Sampras never made more than 3 semifinals in a row. That is also his record for number of slam finals in a row. You might be thinking that this is partly because of Sampras’ lack of prowess on clay. And you would be right. But if you exclude the French Open, Sampras STILL only has a record of 7 straight semifinals. Sampras was #1 in the world from 1993-1998. During that time he lost in the 3rd round and the quarterfinals in the Australian Open. He lost once in the quarterfinals at Wimbledon. And he lost twice in the 4th round of the US Open. And that is not even mentioning Sampras’ yearly early exits in the French Open. In constrast, Federer has had only one loss before the semifinals since he first became #1 in the world.
Fact is, Sampras was a WAY less consistent performer than Federer has been. He was relatively frequently upset early in slams. Federer does not lose early in slams. Sampras did.
2. Sampras was never as dominant as Federer has been
Sampras was simply far less dominant than Federer. Sampras was reasonably dominant at his best. He won 3 slams in a row, 4 of 5 slams, 6 slams in 3 years, and 9 slams in 5 years. That’s pretty great. But Federer is simply in a different stratosphere. He won 3 slams in a row twice. He won 3 slams in a year 3 times, which Sampras never did. He has won 6 of 7 slams, 8 slams in 3 years, and 12 slams in 5 years. Since he won Wimbledon, Federer has won 60% of all slams. Sampras won 42% of all slams during his 6 years as world #1. Federer was far more dominant in slams wins than Sampras.
And when they did win slams, Federer was far more dominant. Sampras frequently had a lot of tough matches in route to his slam wins. Federer rarely has. Sampras lost a total of 50 sets in his 14 slams wins. Federer has lost just 37 sets in his 15 slam wins. Basically Sampras dropped an average of over a set more per slam win than Federer.
Sampras also cannot touch Federer in terms of winning % at their peak. At his peak, Sampras won between 78% and 87% of his matches. Sampras’ most dominant year was 1994, in which he went 77-12, for an 87% winning %. Federer has gone 74-6, 81-4, 92-5, and 68-9, all better winning percentages than Sampras’ best year and in a different stratosphere from the rest of Sampras’ prime years. Right now, as I write this, Federer’s winning percentage this year is actually slightly higher than Sampras’ best year. That while Federer is past his peak.
The fact is that Federer has been a far more dominant player than Sampras was.
3. Sampras was not nearly the clay court player Federer is
Both Sampras and Federer were great grass and hard court players. However, there is a massive difference between the two in clay court ability.
Federer has won the French Open once, made the finals 3 times, and been to the semis another time. On the other hand, Sampras only even made the semis once. During his 6 years as #1, he won just 16 matches at Roland Garros, an average of just 2.7 wins per tournament, which would put him at the 3rd or 4th round on average. 3 out of his 6 years at #1, Sampras didn’t even make the second week of Roland Garros. Federer has won 5 clay court Masters Series events and been runner up at 6 more. Sampras only won 1 Masters Series event and never made the finals of another one.
The fact is, Roger Federer is probably at the tail end of the top 10 clay court players of all time. Sampras was a non-issue on clay courts. This is a big deal. Ability to play extremely well on every surface is a big component of being a great player. Federer has it. Sampras did not.
4. Federer is arguably better than Sampras on grass
Sampras’ best surface was grass. He won 7 Wimbledons. Federer has only won 6, but he is arguably a better grass court player.
This is for a few reasons. Firstly, Sampras has an extra Wimbledon title, which Federer has a very good chance of matching. If he does match it, then the fact that he also was runner-up once would undoubtedly put him ahead.
Before that point in time, though, there are a few points that need to be mentioned. First, in the last 7 years at Wimbledon, Federer has only lost 14 sets. During Sampras’ 8 year run at Wimbledon, he lost 28 sets. His best 7 years was 24 sets lost, compared to 14 for Federer. The fact is that Federer has been more dominant during his run at Wimbledon than Sampras was. Sampras had a tough time in FAR more matches there.
Sampras also did not play particularly well on grass outside of Wimbledon. He was 21-5 at Queens (including 2 titles) during his 8 years at Wimbledon. Sampras lost to some very unimpressive players at Queens. From 2003 onwards, Federer has never lost on grass outside of Wimbledon, winning 5 titles at Halle. Obviously, Sampras lost matches at Queens partially because he didn’t try that hard at Queens, but Federer also doesn’t play as hard at Halle as he does at Wimbledon. He still never loses.
So Federer was more dominant during his Wimbledon wins, far more dominant in grass tournaments outside of Wimbledon, and will probably at least tie Sampras’ 7 Wimbledons. This means Federer is arguably a better grass court player than Sampras, even though grass is Sampras' claim to fame.
5. Only fallacious logic leads us to think Sampras’ era was stronger
Many people who argue that Sampras is better than Federer try to say that Sampras’ era was stronger. First, many people say that Sampras faced more slam winners. That is clearly a failure in logic. Federer was more dominant in slams, so there are less other slam titles to go around than there was in Sampras’ era. That just means that Federer was better in relation to his peers than Sampras was, not that Federer’s peers were necessarily worse than Sampras’.
Many people who say that the 90s were stronger list all the great players who played in the 90s and think about them at their peak. They then compare them to the players playing this year at their current level. That is again fallacious logic because a decade full of great players considered at their peak level will always look better than a given year’s worth of players at their level from that year. It is not fair. If you want to say that Sampras played such tougher opponents, look at Sampras’ opponents at the 1997 and 2000 Wimbledon and the 1993 US Open. They weren’t so great.
The fact is that there is no logical reason to think Federer’s era is weaker than Sampras’. People just think it is because Federer’s dominance (as well as Nadal’s dominance) has left little room for anyone else to win a lot.
However, there are only 4 slams a year to be won no matter how good the quality of players is. The fact that no one else has taken many slams is only indicative of the fact that Federer is farther above his opponents than Sampras was. This is consistent with the idea already contended that Federer is simply a better player than Sampras, and playing against similar quality of opposition. There is no logical reason (like if winnings decreased or something) to believe that the opposition nowadays is worse.
6. Federer’s head to head with Nadal is not a big deal here
Yes, Federer is 7-13 against Nadal. However, this is really not that big of a deal, as some might have people believe.
For various reason I could elaborate on if anyone wants, Nadal is a TERRIBLE matchup for Federer.
When someone is a terrible matchup, it colors the head to head. What does it do? Well given the matchup issues, if Nadal were a greater overall player than Federer, we would expect Nadal to have a HUGE edge head to head. If the two players were equal overall players, then we would still expect Nadal to have a reasonably considerable advantage head to head. And if Federer were the greater overall player, we would expect the head to head to be even or maybe a slight advantage for Federer.
And here’s the thing. Nadal is a better clay court player than Federer. We know that. Because of that, he has a pretty large 2-9 advantage against Federer on that surface. Off of clay, Federer is the better overall player. As expected, then, he has STILL managed a slight advantage off of clay (5-4) despite the terrible matchup.
As a result, the head to head only tells us what we already knew. Nadal is a bad matchup for Federer; he is better than Federer on clay, and Federer is better off of clay. It is clearly not a big deal, then. Federer is just unfortunate in that the best other player of his era is also a terrible individual matchup for him. This has given him a bad head to head against a single player. Sampras did not have this, not because he was a better player, but because he didn’t match up badly individually with the other great players of his era.
Conclusion
Federer has 15 slams and has been more consistent and more dominant than Sampras. He was way better on clay, and arguably the better grass court player. This would seem to make it obvious that Federer is the better overall player. The only arguments against this are that Federer’s era is worse and Federer has a bad head to head against Nadal. But there is no logical reason to believe that Federer’s era is worse; it is more likely that Federer is just better and therefore makes others look worse than Sampras did. And Federer has to play an all time great who he matches up terribly against. Sampras never had to. Therefore, those arguments do not show Sampras to be better.
1. Sampras was never as consistent as Federer is
Roger Federer has currently made 21 straight slam semifinals. He also has separate streaks of 10 slam finals and 6 slams finals in a row.
Pete Sampras never made more than 3 semifinals in a row. That is also his record for number of slam finals in a row. You might be thinking that this is partly because of Sampras’ lack of prowess on clay. And you would be right. But if you exclude the French Open, Sampras STILL only has a record of 7 straight semifinals. Sampras was #1 in the world from 1993-1998. During that time he lost in the 3rd round and the quarterfinals in the Australian Open. He lost once in the quarterfinals at Wimbledon. And he lost twice in the 4th round of the US Open. And that is not even mentioning Sampras’ yearly early exits in the French Open. In constrast, Federer has had only one loss before the semifinals since he first became #1 in the world.
Fact is, Sampras was a WAY less consistent performer than Federer has been. He was relatively frequently upset early in slams. Federer does not lose early in slams. Sampras did.
2. Sampras was never as dominant as Federer has been
Sampras was simply far less dominant than Federer. Sampras was reasonably dominant at his best. He won 3 slams in a row, 4 of 5 slams, 6 slams in 3 years, and 9 slams in 5 years. That’s pretty great. But Federer is simply in a different stratosphere. He won 3 slams in a row twice. He won 3 slams in a year 3 times, which Sampras never did. He has won 6 of 7 slams, 8 slams in 3 years, and 12 slams in 5 years. Since he won Wimbledon, Federer has won 60% of all slams. Sampras won 42% of all slams during his 6 years as world #1. Federer was far more dominant in slams wins than Sampras.
And when they did win slams, Federer was far more dominant. Sampras frequently had a lot of tough matches in route to his slam wins. Federer rarely has. Sampras lost a total of 50 sets in his 14 slams wins. Federer has lost just 37 sets in his 15 slam wins. Basically Sampras dropped an average of over a set more per slam win than Federer.
Sampras also cannot touch Federer in terms of winning % at their peak. At his peak, Sampras won between 78% and 87% of his matches. Sampras’ most dominant year was 1994, in which he went 77-12, for an 87% winning %. Federer has gone 74-6, 81-4, 92-5, and 68-9, all better winning percentages than Sampras’ best year and in a different stratosphere from the rest of Sampras’ prime years. Right now, as I write this, Federer’s winning percentage this year is actually slightly higher than Sampras’ best year. That while Federer is past his peak.
The fact is that Federer has been a far more dominant player than Sampras was.
3. Sampras was not nearly the clay court player Federer is
Both Sampras and Federer were great grass and hard court players. However, there is a massive difference between the two in clay court ability.
Federer has won the French Open once, made the finals 3 times, and been to the semis another time. On the other hand, Sampras only even made the semis once. During his 6 years as #1, he won just 16 matches at Roland Garros, an average of just 2.7 wins per tournament, which would put him at the 3rd or 4th round on average. 3 out of his 6 years at #1, Sampras didn’t even make the second week of Roland Garros. Federer has won 5 clay court Masters Series events and been runner up at 6 more. Sampras only won 1 Masters Series event and never made the finals of another one.
The fact is, Roger Federer is probably at the tail end of the top 10 clay court players of all time. Sampras was a non-issue on clay courts. This is a big deal. Ability to play extremely well on every surface is a big component of being a great player. Federer has it. Sampras did not.
4. Federer is arguably better than Sampras on grass
Sampras’ best surface was grass. He won 7 Wimbledons. Federer has only won 6, but he is arguably a better grass court player.
This is for a few reasons. Firstly, Sampras has an extra Wimbledon title, which Federer has a very good chance of matching. If he does match it, then the fact that he also was runner-up once would undoubtedly put him ahead.
Before that point in time, though, there are a few points that need to be mentioned. First, in the last 7 years at Wimbledon, Federer has only lost 14 sets. During Sampras’ 8 year run at Wimbledon, he lost 28 sets. His best 7 years was 24 sets lost, compared to 14 for Federer. The fact is that Federer has been more dominant during his run at Wimbledon than Sampras was. Sampras had a tough time in FAR more matches there.
Sampras also did not play particularly well on grass outside of Wimbledon. He was 21-5 at Queens (including 2 titles) during his 8 years at Wimbledon. Sampras lost to some very unimpressive players at Queens. From 2003 onwards, Federer has never lost on grass outside of Wimbledon, winning 5 titles at Halle. Obviously, Sampras lost matches at Queens partially because he didn’t try that hard at Queens, but Federer also doesn’t play as hard at Halle as he does at Wimbledon. He still never loses.
So Federer was more dominant during his Wimbledon wins, far more dominant in grass tournaments outside of Wimbledon, and will probably at least tie Sampras’ 7 Wimbledons. This means Federer is arguably a better grass court player than Sampras, even though grass is Sampras' claim to fame.
5. Only fallacious logic leads us to think Sampras’ era was stronger
Many people who argue that Sampras is better than Federer try to say that Sampras’ era was stronger. First, many people say that Sampras faced more slam winners. That is clearly a failure in logic. Federer was more dominant in slams, so there are less other slam titles to go around than there was in Sampras’ era. That just means that Federer was better in relation to his peers than Sampras was, not that Federer’s peers were necessarily worse than Sampras’.
Many people who say that the 90s were stronger list all the great players who played in the 90s and think about them at their peak. They then compare them to the players playing this year at their current level. That is again fallacious logic because a decade full of great players considered at their peak level will always look better than a given year’s worth of players at their level from that year. It is not fair. If you want to say that Sampras played such tougher opponents, look at Sampras’ opponents at the 1997 and 2000 Wimbledon and the 1993 US Open. They weren’t so great.
The fact is that there is no logical reason to think Federer’s era is weaker than Sampras’. People just think it is because Federer’s dominance (as well as Nadal’s dominance) has left little room for anyone else to win a lot.
However, there are only 4 slams a year to be won no matter how good the quality of players is. The fact that no one else has taken many slams is only indicative of the fact that Federer is farther above his opponents than Sampras was. This is consistent with the idea already contended that Federer is simply a better player than Sampras, and playing against similar quality of opposition. There is no logical reason (like if winnings decreased or something) to believe that the opposition nowadays is worse.
6. Federer’s head to head with Nadal is not a big deal here
Yes, Federer is 7-13 against Nadal. However, this is really not that big of a deal, as some might have people believe.
For various reason I could elaborate on if anyone wants, Nadal is a TERRIBLE matchup for Federer.
When someone is a terrible matchup, it colors the head to head. What does it do? Well given the matchup issues, if Nadal were a greater overall player than Federer, we would expect Nadal to have a HUGE edge head to head. If the two players were equal overall players, then we would still expect Nadal to have a reasonably considerable advantage head to head. And if Federer were the greater overall player, we would expect the head to head to be even or maybe a slight advantage for Federer.
And here’s the thing. Nadal is a better clay court player than Federer. We know that. Because of that, he has a pretty large 2-9 advantage against Federer on that surface. Off of clay, Federer is the better overall player. As expected, then, he has STILL managed a slight advantage off of clay (5-4) despite the terrible matchup.
As a result, the head to head only tells us what we already knew. Nadal is a bad matchup for Federer; he is better than Federer on clay, and Federer is better off of clay. It is clearly not a big deal, then. Federer is just unfortunate in that the best other player of his era is also a terrible individual matchup for him. This has given him a bad head to head against a single player. Sampras did not have this, not because he was a better player, but because he didn’t match up badly individually with the other great players of his era.
Conclusion
Federer has 15 slams and has been more consistent and more dominant than Sampras. He was way better on clay, and arguably the better grass court player. This would seem to make it obvious that Federer is the better overall player. The only arguments against this are that Federer’s era is worse and Federer has a bad head to head against Nadal. But there is no logical reason to believe that Federer’s era is worse; it is more likely that Federer is just better and therefore makes others look worse than Sampras did. And Federer has to play an all time great who he matches up terribly against. Sampras never had to. Therefore, those arguments do not show Sampras to be better.
Last edited:
It's a clean start for a topic like this.
