Why Sampras would completely own the so-called Big 4 poseurs at Wimbledon

[BGod]

Pete's biggest problem was that he was the only one. No one else on his level. Each of the Big 3 would have numbers out of this world without the other 2.

Methed up Agassi who only showed up every once in a while was his biggest rival. Not enough people who comment on PETE’s weak competition.
04-07 >>> 98-02

16 Seeded Draws get waaaaay overlooked.

That was Pete's era, while grass and USO were faster surfaces and therefore you had deeper clay field. This I what most miss with Big 3/5.

16 Seeded Draws meant you could get two opponents ranked 17-32 who would be even better on a given surface prior to the 3rd Round and often at least 1. This totally changed with 32 Seeded format because now you knew you'd get far lower quality player on homogenized surfaces until at least 3rd round to get into rhythm and then upsets could totally destroy competition for R16-QF.

People need to judge past Draws more by looking at earlier rounds.

 

[SamprasisGOAT]

pete had no match or that one rival you see in cases of big-3 today......agassi was by no means his main rival outside that early 90s period when pete snatched #1 from him, he was just one of the many rivals after that.....pete was head and shoulders above the field.....3 time champ becker (who is taller btw than pete) was perceived a huge rival at wimbledon but was dominated by pistol......edberg and ivanisevic (again both taller than pete) got the best of pete in his early days but pete overturned the rivalry upside down within no time once he hit his prime......

i remember most top players did not want to see philippoussis in the earlier rounds at wimbledon in late 90s but to pete he was just another guy, shows how good his return was even on fast grass.....i think it was a different era with a lot of depth and variety, not just two or three guys stopping everyone else at the helm of the sport......

i mentioned just days ago how tennis bodies ruined the post 2010 phase of tennis by not encouraging variety......the likes of dolgopolov, janiwicz, dimitrov etc. the lost gen were clearly hurt with the slow surfaces......if you look at each of their games, no one would want to face janowicz on 90s grass, unpredictable dolgopolov on fast hardcourts of the 90s and even indoors, even dimitrov would have made some noise on fast surfaces......these three in particular were clearly not made for homogenized era......i am sure there are few others as well that faced the same fate......

pete had a lot of early round scares throughout his playing career, the chances of upset was very high unlike today because of specialists......big-3 clearly have the idea what it was to face the 90s music on grass with the old rackets and that's why fed and djoko keep bringing up pete's name all the time, they clearly know what it would taken him to win 7 times in that era......i would even go to the extent of saying 90s wimbledon was toughest to win of all the decades due to the sheer speed of the surfaces coupled with the then latest tech in the mix......

absolutely brilliant post

 

[SamprasisGOAT]

How does a peak Sampras do in a 20 match series mixing the 2 grasses vs all the big 3 and then if you want Roddick/Murray/Hewitt for bonus points.

****ing batters them all

 

[JasonZ]

We'll never know how tough of a challenge Phil would've been in 1999 if he hadn't retired.

exactly. thats why i think petes 1999 is overrated. the only guy who could really defeat a well playing sampras in the draw war philippoussis. and he retired after 1 set lead.

agassi and henman cant win against sampras at wimbledon when he was playing (serving) well, not even great, just well.

in 1998 sampras defeated both goran and philippoussis. so 1998 wimby is underrated, while 1999 is overrated.

 

[JasonZ]

exactly. thats why i think petes 1999 wimby is overrated. the only guy who could really defeat a well playing sampras in the draw war philippoussis. and he retired after 1 set lead.

agassi and henman cant win against sampras at wimbledon when he was playing (serving) well, not even great, just well.

in 1998 sampras defeated both goran and philippoussis. so 1998 wimby is underrated, while 1999 is overrated.

 

[NonP]

Good overall case, but I still think you over-sell the importance of Pete’s unreturned serve %’s in Wimby finals. See here:

That's fair enough but incomplete, cuz it ignores the fact that those '90s guys faced S&Vers/net rushers a lot more often even off grass. (Plus Fred's 3 Fs vs. Novak weren't part of my analysis, but I'm guessing you did notice that disclaimer.) And since this is TA charting data most of these matches are likely from Wim/USO/AO. How much that would affect the #s in conjunction with poly effects is hard to say, but if U shave off just 2-3% most of Pistol's opponents would be within or below the range of Fred's except Muzz (of course).

Based on how Fed did against his least consistent returning Wimby final opponents, I don’t think it’d be out of the question to expect a healthy 45% URS in Pete’s shoes.

It pretty much is. By now I've got close to 200 Fed matches in my URS% file and can say with confidence he very rarely clears 45%, let alone 50%. I mean even at SW19 he stays under 40% most of the time, and though he did post a rounded 45% or higher in 3 of his 12 Fs Cilic was injured in '17 while Scud and A-Rod weren't exactly the hardest guys to ace (as your own #s show).

Oh yeah and Fred S&Ved 58% of the time in the '03 F. Of course we could assume he S&Vs on at least the majority of his 1st serves in the '90s, but then we wouldn't be talking about prime Fed, would we?

And even if we grant that for argument's sake I've never been convinced that he would've turned into a full-time S&Ver on '90s grass. Believe it was @shakes1975 who made the cogent observation that Fred prefers a swing volley to a regular one. To me that's a dead giveaway he likes to play with more margins. My guess is that your boy would be more like Borg: come in on 1st serves vs. top dogs at SW19 and occasionally elsewhere, but mostly stay back on 2nd.

Maybe Fred could approach 40% vs. Jim, Goran, Boris, Pioline, Dre and Pat with occasional S&V, but 45%? I mean even Goran barely topped 45% in his own Fs at 46.2% (283/613), and that's despite S&Ving on most of his serves. 45% for Fed is a big stretch.

And in the words of Silvio Dante, I’ve “said my piece” (about the viability of S+V’ing with the same frequency in the 2010’s) :

I was pretty sure I'd already responded to that, and I did:

Sampras 1995 vs Current Djokovic on Modern Grass

How am I "propping up" these guys when I point out the simple fact that just about everyone wins 60% of his net points? I'm referring to every player with charted matches in the TA database, not just the more recent ones. I never said most of 'em would still keep that % if they had to come in as...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

Keep in mind that 60% is on all of net points. Chances are % of net points won on serve is considerably higher. Again the fact that even M. Zverev and Brown clear 60% in supposedly slower conditions while coming in more than Pistol (if just barely) is indeed significant. Not to mention that net play isn't just about winning a higher % of points.

Borg was better than Pete, career though just shorter.

Pete himself though dominated for a stretch of 7 seasons. Not far from Fed.

U could argue Borg was better than any of the Big 3, period, but then how can U dismiss his lack of longevity while touting up Pete's in the very next sentence? Borg was #1 for 5 years at most, and that's if U give '76 to him over Jimbo. By the same token Pistol takes '99 over Dre, which makes this comparison moot.

 

[PMChambers]

But Pete was closer to his prime than Fed at that time.

pete went five set with Barry Cowan same Tourney. I know, you thing Barry Cowan is a unlucky not to be in the Big 3, 4, 5 whatever. But if say Sampras was terrible that year and pushed Federed who is a little bit better than Barry Cowan at the time.

 

[TheFifthSet]

That's fair enough but incomplete, cuz it ignores the fact that those '90s guys faced S&Vers/net rushers a lot more often even off grass. (Plus Fred's 3 Fs vs. Novak weren't part of my analysis, but I'm guessing you did notice that disclaimer.) And since this is TA charting data most of these matches are likely from Wim/USO/AO. How much that would affect the #s in conjunction with poly effects is hard to say, but if U shave off just 2-3% most of Pistol's opponents would be within or below the range of Fred's except Muzz (of course).

I don’t think those high missed return %’s can be fully chalked up to playing more net-rushers when the net rushers in question don’t dominate the URS% leaderboards in the (admittedly limited) TA data set. Of the top 20, 14 are 2000’s players, 6 are 90’s guys. There’s little to indicate unreturned serve figures were higher then than now, even just amongst the top guys.

Also of the players Pete faced in finals, there’s no fast-court skew with Pioline (8 of 14 charted matches took place on clay), Courier (a disproportionate % of charted matches were on slow HC and clay), barely any with Goran (almost as many clay matches, 8, as grass matches, 9) or Agassi (who regularly missed 40-45% of his returns on grass, and 37.2% overall).

Sure, the more pronounced effect net-rushing may have on unreturned serve rates on grass (as vs. other surfaces) is a variable, but I still maintain that were Fed to face off with this caliber of returners (I mean only in terms of missed returns, no doubt Dre is an all-timer) his %’s would be a whole lot better and likely topping 40%.

It pretty much is. By now I've got close to 200 Fed matches in my URS% file and can say with confidence he very rarely clears 45%, let alone 50%. I mean even at SW19 he stays under 40% most of the time, and though he did post a rounded 45% or higher in 3 of his 12 Fs Cilic was injured in '17

I’ll walk back the 45% figure, you’re prob right and I didn’t think it through. Sure, it’s likely a bit too much to expect from Fed…though with a mindset to S+V I wouldn’t rule it out completely against those exact same guys. Fed is more comfortable from the baseline and his unparalleled third ball fh, while yielding positive returns (no pun intended) overall, probably brought his URS%’s down as he felt less of an impetus to go big than Pete did. Which is yet another reason why the edge in freebies (though a genuine one, which would hold regardless of circumstance) doesn’t come close to conclusively demonstrating Pete’s SW19 superiority.

while Scud and A-Rod weren't exactly the hardest guys to ace (as your own #s show).

Which is why I highlight Fed’s success off the serve against them. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that in his most serve-dominant Wimby runs he was racking up high URS%’s against two returners that missed ‘em about as frequently as Pete’s avg finals customer.

Oh yeah and Fred S&Ved 58% of the time in the '03 F. Of course we could assume he S&Vs on at least the majority of his 1st serves in the '90s, but then we wouldn't be talking about prime Fed, would we?

Actually in my books we would; I’m on record maintaining ‘03 Wimby, where he S+V’d off most firsts and some seconds, was his best and peakest one, with ‘05 a close second.

And even if we grant that for argument's sake I've never been convinced that he would've turned into a full-time S&Ver on '90s grass. Believe it was @shakes1975 who made the cogent observation that Fred prefers a swing volley to a regular one. To me that's a dead giveaway he likes to play with more margins. My guess is that your boy would be more like Borg: come in on 1st serves vs. top dogs at SW19 and occasionally elsewhere, but mostly stay back on 2nd.

Fair enough. I’m not sure if I agree Fed prefers the swinging volley as much as he hits it more than the average net-rusher, but even so, when he committed to S+V’ing (a la Wimby ‘03) his regular volleys (particularly the stab volley and bh dropper) were world-class.

Maybe Fred could approach 40% vs. Jim, Goran, Boris, Pioline, Dre and Pat with occasional S&V, but 45%? I mean even Goran barely topped 45% in his own Fs at 46.2% (283/613), and that's despite S&Ving on most of his serves. 45% for Fed is a big stretch.

45% against Goran, Pioline and Dre isn’t that out of the question on grass; Goran in 44 charted matches missed 43.4% of returns across all surfaces, with only 9 of 44 taking place on the slick stuff (and nearly as many on the dirt). Fed notched over 45% against Agassi twice despite never playing on grass or indoors (other than Basel ‘98, when Fed was 17).


I’ll respond to everything else tmr, posting long replies off my phone is seriously fatiguing lol.

 

[abmk]

With guys like Pistol, Fred and Djoker w/a gazillion Fs things more or less even out. If anything this analysis underrates Novak due to those 3 Fs vs. your boy.

Which is a nice segue into:

what gazillion finals? its 7 finals for Pete. small sample size. Sorry, this is just flat out wrong.

Add all 3 rounds QF-F. fed's better in best 5 years each.
about same for best 7 years.


Sampras (93-97) :

Service games : 93.2%
Return games : 22.2%
Total games : 58%

Federer (03-07)

Service games : 92.5%
Return games : 26.1%
Total games : 59.5%

that's not a small difference.

Now looking at a 7 year period :

Sampras (93-99)
Service games : 93.2%
Return games : 20.7%
Total games : 57.2%

Federer (03-09)
Service games : 93.5%
Return games : 20.7%
Total games : 57.2%

-------------------

oh and djoko benefitting with Anderson, Berretinni..
neither of 14 fed/15 fed/19 fed are that great. all could be closed out in 4 sets if focussed kept by prime ATG

 

[RS]

Sampras going 60-0 vs the big 3 in a 20 match series

 

[RS]

****ing batters them all

That’s a 120 matches surely he loses some......

 

[abmk]

pete went five set with Barry Cowan same Tourney. I know, you thing Barry Cowan is a unlucky not to be in the Big 3, 4, 5 whatever. But if say Sampras was terrible that year and pushed Federed who is a little bit better than Barry Cowan at the time.

Pete had improved significantly from 2nd round to 4th round at that Wimbledon. Anyone watching properly should notice that. Commentators mentioned the same.

 

[RS]

pete went five set with Barry Cowan same Tourney. I know, you thing Barry Cowan is a unlucky not to be in the Big 3, 4, 5 whatever. But if say Sampras was terrible that year and pushed Federed who is a little bit better than Barry Cowan at the time.

Pete was unlucky they slowed Wim down and some other faster surface. Could have stayed longer and competed for slam titles in the 2003-06 era playing with poly. Think Federer could have had some real trouble on the fast stuff if Pete was still motivated to play.

 

[NatF]

Fed > PETE >> Djok > Nadal

 

[TheNachoMan]

Fed > PETE >> Djok > Nadal

At Wimbledon or overall? If at Wimbledon, I can get behind but overall? ROFLMAO.

 

[abmk]

Fed notched over 45% against Agassi twice despite never playing on grass or indoors (other than Basel ‘98, when Fed was 17).

This is what I have:

Federer unreturned serves vs Agassi ->

Miami 2002 F was 38/112 (33.93%) http://www.tennisabstract.com/charting/20020324-M-Miami_Masters-F-Roger_Federer-Andre_Agassi.html
YEC 03 RR was 39/124 (31.45%) http://www.tennisabstract.com/charting/20031110-M-Masters_Cup-RR-Roger_Federer-Andre_Agassi.html
YEC 03 final was 25/70 (35.71%) http://www.tennisabstract.com/charting/20031116-M-Masters_Cup-F-Roger_Federer-Andre_Agassi.html
IW 04 SF was 34/85 (40%) http://www.tennisabstract.com/chart...ls_Masters-SF-Roger_Federer-Andre_Agassi.html
USO 04 QF was 56/158 (35.44%) http://www.tennisabstract.com/charting/20040909-M-US_Open-QF-Roger_Federer-Andre_Agassi.html
AO 05 QF was 46/99 (46.46%) https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...si-australian-open-quarter-final-2005.689891/
Dubai 05 semi was 22/51 (43.13%) http://www.tennisabstract.com/charting/20050221-M-Dubai-SF-Roger_Federer-Andre_Agassi.html
Miami 05 semi was 24/66 (35/36%) http://www.tennisabstract.com/charting/20050326-M-Miami_Masters-SF-Roger_Federer-Andre_Agassi.html
USO 05 final was 43/107 (40.19%) http://www.tennisabstract.com/charting/20050911-M-US_Open-F-Roger_Federer-Andre_Agassi.html

AO 05 is one. Dubai 05 semi is close, but not quite there.

 

[abmk]

Fed > PETE >> Djok > Nadal

Yep
7 wins+1 final reached at prime or prime-ish level for Fed
7 wins at prime/prime-ish level for Sampras
4 wins+1 more final reached at prime/prime-ish level for Djoko
2 wins+3 more finals reached at prime/prime-isg level for Nadal

 

[RS]

What it sez. I was gonna post a couple quick replies in @Gerco's thread about RoS > serve, but then my genius cranium began working overtime which led to one deep dive after another.

So how have I arrived at my always infallible analysis? Y'all should know one-trick ponies like Bull generally fare better in the 2nd week than in the 1st, cuz they need more time than the average dude to settle into a groove and the courts actually turn slower as the grass dries/wears out and the soil hardens. And you tend to face tougher opponents in later rounds, as we saw in yesterday's final that exceeded our expectations (save mine, naturally).

U should feel where I'm going with this. It doesn't mean jack crap how much you dominate a Gabashvili, Petzschner (oh sorry, our Pig-Pen couldn't even do that) or Kudla in the 1st week if you can't clear the money rounds, and what's the money-est of 'em all? The very last one, of course!

Now many of y'all already know Pistol lost serve all of 4 times in his 7 Wimbledon finals, which alone should tell you he'd b!tch-slap any of the so-called Big 4 pretenders on Centre Court. But what U may not know is that his stupendous 96.9% hold rate in the Fs is actually higher than his average in all his 7 runs combined!

So let's look at those %s. Since the service/return stats became readily available in '91 and we've since had only 5 champs who won the whole shebang more than once we actually need go no further than Pistol and the Not-So-Big 4, which makes this task rather simple. Here are their average SGW%s in all rounds vs. in Fs in the years of their triumphs - so 2008/14/15/19 are out for Fred, 06/07/11 for Bull, etc. - followed by the differential %:

Sampras - 95.5% (787/824), 96.9% (127/131), +1.4%
Federer - 94.3% (829/879), 91.1% (154/169), -3.2%
Nadal - 94.7% (234/247), 97.8% (44/45), +3.1%
Djokovic - 91.9% (850/925)*, 89.1% (139/156), -2.8%
Murray - 91.3% (209/229), 87.9% (29/33), -3.4%

*For some reason the ATP has yet to update its match stats for this year's RG and Wimby, so the latter had to be excluded for Novak's tournament SGW% and RGW%.

The Dirtballer's limited sample size makes that 3.1% "improvement" misleading, but the rest are more or less what you expect... except for Pistol!

And the RGW%s:

Sampras - 23.6% (190/806), 18.3% (24/131), -5.3%
Federer - 28.3% (242/855), 17.9% (30/168), -10.4%
Nadal - 24.7% (60/243), 17.4% (8/46), -7.3%
Djokovic - 28.5% (258/904)*, 18.1% (28/155), -10.4%
Murray - 30.9% (69/223), 24.2% (8/33), -6.7%

Pistol again stands out. And that's despite his (in)famous cruising on 1st-serve returns and facing the likes of Becker, Ivanisevic, Rusedski and Philippoussis, not to mention elite net rushers like Rafter, Henman and Bjorkman which no doubt hurt his %s.

On to the TBs:

Sampras - 70% (23/33), 67% (6/9), -3%
Federer - 86% (32/37), 90% (9/10), +4%
Nadal - 67% (6/9), 0% (0/2), -67%
Djokovic - 63% (20/32), 70% (7/10), +7%
Murray - 80% (4/5), 100% (2/2), +20%

So this is the one area where Fed and Djoker can be said to have outperformed Pistol. And Fred's conversion rate here is indeed impressive which is why I'd give him about a 0.000000000000000000000000000001% chance to beat Pete here and there.

Now the overall GW%s, including the TBs:

Sampras - 60.1% (1000/1663), 57.9% (157/271), -2.2%
Federer - 62.3% (1103/1771), 55.6% (193/347), -6.7%
Nadal - 60.1% (300/499), 55.9% (52/93), -4.2%
Djokovic - 60.6% (1271/2097), 53.1% (186/350), -7.5%
Murray - 61.7% (282/457), 57.4% (39/68), -4.3%

As expected Pistol suffers the least dip from the previous rounds. And notice the yuge free falls for both Fred and Nole (gotta say the latter's is somewhat surprising, even considering his 3 Fs vs. Geezerer himself). I will add, though, that all 5 of 'em passes the all-important 60% mark in their career-making runs, which is pretty damn impressive.

But let's be real. Based on this 100% infallible analysis, how could any half-awake moron back any of these poseurs against Pistol who won over half of his serves as outright freebies in those Fs and whose very game is designed to be "clutch"? Oh that's only 'cause he played on "fast grass," you say? Then see if you can explain this away:

Can we have tennis like this again pls

You keep the serve-box the same speed (nobody wants to see Isner succeed) and speed up the rest of the court.

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

Or this:

Best serve: 26 and under

Why are we talking about Isner? Because Isner has the same advantages as Opelka, but he uses his serve more effectively. Conclusion: for his height, Opelka could use his serve more effectively (maybe a racquet change, per @traveljam)

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

Or this:

Best serve: 26 and under

Just so I understand, you want to base the determination on the "best serve" between two players on 7 not head-to-head and not common opponent matches that one guy played. You think that is the best piece of evidence we have, is that correct? What is a good Reilly Opelka serving performance...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

Or this:

PETE 99 W F vs Krajicek 96 W QF

Let’s try this again. Serious poll here. I included everyone so no one is left out. Who wins the hypothetical grass peak battle? Abbrev. Key: PETE - Peter Sampras W - Wimbledon

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

And no, these #s don't prove anything about court speed, nor do I think it can be measured in any scientifically rigorous manner. What I'm saying you to instead is, it matters not one whit whether the courts have "slowed" down when players are holding serve more often than ever. That's really the one big way poly has changed the game, its extra spin facilitating higher 1st-serve %s and heavier/riskier 2nd serves without too many DFs. And guess who'd most benefit from this greater emphasis on serve?

Of course this is where y'all come back with the mantra that S&V/net rushing is no longer feasible today, so I'll close by reposting that link to my equally airtight analysis of TA charting data:

TA’s Match Charting Stats Leaderboard Discussion

One of the hidden gems in tennis stat circles IMO: http://tennisabstract.com/reports/mcp_leaders_serve_men_last52.html http://tennisabstract.com/reports/mcp_leaders_serve_men_career.html http://tennisabstract.com/reports/mcp_leaders_return_men_last52.html...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

As U can see virtually everyone wins at least 60% of his net points. Yes, even today. And barring rare exceptions like Ivo (not surprising) that stays true on both S&V and regular approaches. If a virtual journeyman like Cressy can make the 4th round of a major and upset a top 10er like FAA with good ol' S&V imagine how much more damage Pistol could do with poly.

Ergo, the BOAT. GSM Sampras!

P.S. Again service/return stats are hard to come by for older guys, but I was able to put together Borg's SGW/RGW%s in his own Wimby Fs:

1999 Sampras vs 1980 Borg at wimbledon

Assuming both had graphite racquets. best of five set match. on the pre 2001 grass. before they slowed it down.

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

The Ice Man's 57.7% is only fractionally lower than Pistol's 57.9%, and his 3.4% drop 2nd only to Pete's 2.2% among these multi-champs and quite possibly in the entire OE. (I'll see if I can follow up with a new batch of #s for Rod, Newk, Jimbo, Boris and Edberg.) I said prior to yesterday's F that if Djoker nabs his 7th he moves ahead of Borg... but now I'm having 2nd thoughts! Still leaning towards Novak as 3rd behind Pistol and Fred, but make no mistake: Borg was THE MAN!

Peak Fed vs Peak Pete 20 matches at the USO and 10 matches YEC?

 

[mike danny]

pete went five set with Barry Cowan same Tourney. I know, you thing Barry Cowan is a unlucky not to be in the Big 3, 4, 5 whatever. But if say Sampras was terrible that year and pushed Federed who is a little bit better than Barry Cowan at the time.

Fed played 5 sets with a nobody at 2012 Wimb too.

 

[Deleted member 779124]

Sampras going 60-0 vs the big 3 in a 20 match series

No way does anybody come near that close vs the big 3 on grass esp. Federer.

I imagine Sampras would win the vast majority vs Nadal and Djokovic but not all of them and would split the meetings with Federer (I would give Sampras a tiny edge actually)

 

[Dane_is_Finnish_OJ]

What it sez. I was gonna post a couple quick replies in @Gerco's thread about RoS > serve, but then my genius cranium began working overtime which led to one deep dive after another.

So how have I arrived at my always infallible analysis? Y'all should know one-trick ponies like Bull generally fare better in the 2nd week than in the 1st, cuz they need more time than the average dude to settle into a groove and the courts actually turn slower as the grass dries/wears out and the soil hardens. And you tend to face tougher opponents in later rounds, as we saw in yesterday's final that exceeded our expectations (save mine, naturally).

U should feel where I'm going with this. It doesn't mean jack crap how much you dominate a Gabashvili, Petzschner (oh sorry, our Pig-Pen couldn't even do that) or Kudla in the 1st week if you can't clear the money rounds, and what's the money-est of 'em all? The very last one, of course!

Now many of y'all already know Pistol lost serve all of 4 times in his 7 Wimbledon finals, which alone should tell you he'd b!tch-slap any of the so-called Big 4 pretenders on Centre Court. But what U may not know is that his stupendous 96.9% hold rate in the Fs is actually higher than his average in all his 7 runs combined!

So let's look at those %s. Since the service/return stats became readily available in '91 and we've since had only 5 champs who won the whole shebang more than once we actually need go no further than Pistol and the Not-So-Big 4, which makes this task rather simple. Here are their average SGW%s in all rounds vs. in Fs in the years of their triumphs - so 2008/14/15/19 are out for Fred, 06/07/11 for Bull, etc. - followed by the differential %:

Sampras - 95.5% (787/824), 96.9% (127/131), +1.4%
Federer - 94.3% (829/879), 91.1% (154/169), -3.2%
Nadal - 94.7% (234/247), 97.8% (44/45), +3.1%
Djokovic - 91.9% (850/925)*, 89.1% (139/156), -2.8%
Murray - 91.3% (209/229), 87.9% (29/33), -3.4%

*For some reason the ATP has yet to update its match stats for this year's RG and Wimby, so the latter had to be excluded for Novak's tournament SGW% and RGW%.

The Dirtballer's limited sample size makes that 3.1% "improvement" misleading, but the rest are more or less what you expect... except for Pistol!

And the RGW%s:

Sampras - 23.6% (190/806), 18.3% (24/131), -5.3%
Federer - 28.3% (242/855), 17.9% (30/168), -10.4%
Nadal - 24.7% (60/243), 17.4% (8/46), -7.3%
Djokovic - 28.5% (258/904)*, 18.1% (28/155), -10.4%
Murray - 30.9% (69/223), 24.2% (8/33), -6.7%

Pistol again stands out. And that's despite his (in)famous cruising on 1st-serve returns and facing the likes of Becker, Ivanisevic, Rusedski and Philippoussis, not to mention elite net rushers like Rafter, Henman and Bjorkman which no doubt hurt his %s.

On to the TBs:

Sampras - 70% (23/33), 67% (6/9), -3%
Federer - 86% (32/37), 90% (9/10), +4%
Nadal - 67% (6/9), 0% (0/2), -67%
Djokovic - 63% (20/32), 70% (7/10), +7%
Murray - 80% (4/5), 100% (2/2), +20%

So this is the one area where Fed and Djoker can be said to have outperformed Pistol. And Fred's conversion rate here is indeed impressive which is why I'd give him about a 0.000000000000000000000000000001% chance to beat Pete here and there.

Now the overall GW%s, including the TBs:

Sampras - 60.1% (1000/1663), 57.9% (157/271), -2.2%
Federer - 62.3% (1103/1771), 55.6% (193/347), -6.7%
Nadal - 60.1% (300/499), 55.9% (52/93), -4.2%
Djokovic - 60.6% (1271/2097), 53.1% (186/350), -7.5%
Murray - 61.7% (282/457), 57.4% (39/68), -4.3%

As expected Pistol suffers the least dip from the previous rounds. And notice the yuge free falls for both Fred and Nole (gotta say the latter's is somewhat surprising, even considering his 3 Fs vs. Geezerer himself). I will add, though, that all 5 of 'em passes the all-important 60% mark in their career-making runs, which is pretty damn impressive.

But let's be real. Based on this 100% infallible analysis, how could any half-awake moron back any of these poseurs against Pistol who won over half of his serves as outright freebies in those Fs and whose very game is designed to be "clutch"? Oh that's only 'cause he played on "fast grass," you say? Then see if you can explain this away:

Can we have tennis like this again pls

You keep the serve-box the same speed (nobody wants to see Isner succeed) and speed up the rest of the court.

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

Or this:

Best serve: 26 and under

Why are we talking about Isner? Because Isner has the same advantages as Opelka, but he uses his serve more effectively. Conclusion: for his height, Opelka could use his serve more effectively (maybe a racquet change, per @traveljam)

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

Or this:

Best serve: 26 and under

Just so I understand, you want to base the determination on the "best serve" between two players on 7 not head-to-head and not common opponent matches that one guy played. You think that is the best piece of evidence we have, is that correct? What is a good Reilly Opelka serving performance...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

Or this:

PETE 99 W F vs Krajicek 96 W QF

Let’s try this again. Serious poll here. I included everyone so no one is left out. Who wins the hypothetical grass peak battle? Abbrev. Key: PETE - Peter Sampras W - Wimbledon

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

And no, these #s don't prove anything about court speed, nor do I think it can be measured in any scientifically rigorous manner. What I'm saying you to instead is, it matters not one whit whether the courts have "slowed" down when players are holding serve more often than ever. That's really the one big way poly has changed the game, its extra spin facilitating higher 1st-serve %s and heavier/riskier 2nd serves without too many DFs. And guess who'd most benefit from this greater emphasis on serve?

Of course this is where y'all come back with the mantra that S&V/net rushing is no longer feasible today, so I'll close by reposting that link to my equally airtight analysis of TA charting data:

TA’s Match Charting Stats Leaderboard Discussion

One of the hidden gems in tennis stat circles IMO: http://tennisabstract.com/reports/mcp_leaders_serve_men_last52.html http://tennisabstract.com/reports/mcp_leaders_serve_men_career.html http://tennisabstract.com/reports/mcp_leaders_return_men_last52.html...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

As U can see virtually everyone wins at least 60% of his net points. Yes, even today. And barring rare exceptions like Ivo (not surprising) that stays true on both S&V and regular approaches. If a virtual journeyman like Cressy can make the 4th round of a major and upset a top 10er like FAA with good ol' S&V imagine how much more damage Pistol could do with poly.

Ergo, the BOAT. GSM Sampras!

P.S. Again service/return stats are hard to come by for older guys, but I was able to put together Borg's SGW/RGW%s in his own Wimby Fs:

1999 Sampras vs 1980 Borg at wimbledon

Assuming both had graphite racquets. best of five set match. on the pre 2001 grass. before they slowed it down.

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

The Ice Man's 57.7% is only fractionally lower than Pistol's 57.9%, and his 3.4% drop 2nd only to Pete's 2.2% among these multi-champs and quite possibly in the entire OE. (I'll see if I can follow up with a new batch of #s for Rod, Newk, Jimbo, Boris and Edberg.) I said prior to yesterday's F that if Djoker nabs his 7th he moves ahead of Borg... but now I'm having 2nd thoughts! Still leaning towards Novak as 3rd behind Pistol and Fred, but make no mistake: Borg was THE MAN!

Sampras never met returners like Fed, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray.

 

[NatF]

At Wimbledon or overall? If at Wimbledon, I can get behind but overall? ROFLMAO.

Wimbledon. I'm not @RS I try to stick to thread topics

 

[RS]

Fed is > Djokovic at Wimbledon not >>>

 

[PMChambers]

Fed played 5 sets with a nobody at 2012 Wimb too.

2001 was the worst year since 1989. It's not really the same. This is not as bad a say Borg after 82 but it not Pistol Pete, more Nerf Gun Pete.

The following is C&P from wiki so can be misleading, but puts his form into prospective.

2001: No singles title and drop in rankingEdit
Sampras' 31-match Wimbledon win streak ended in a five set loss to Roger Federer, aged 19, in the fourth round; this was the only time the two tennis legends ever played an official professional match. At the US Open, Sampras reached the final but lost in straight sets to Lleyton Hewitt.[34] Overall, this season was the first in 12 years that Sampras did not win a single title, and he finished the year ranked No. 10, also his lowest since 1989.

 

[PMChambers]

Pete was unlucky they slowed Wim down and some other faster surface. Could have stayed longer and competed for slam titles in the 2003-06 era playing with poly. Think Federer could have had some real trouble on the fast stuff if Pete was still motivated to play.

Poly wouldn't help his game. It made HC play like fast clay. Slow surfaces like Rebound Ace were never favourable to his game which was developed for Fast HC, Grass and indoor Carpet, IE: USO, Wim, WTC & YF. Throw in Cin and IW (fast through the air but slow surface].
BTW he wasn't useless in slow surfaces, just not his best.

 

[RS]

Poly wouldn't help his game. It made HC play like fast clay. Slow surfaces like Rebound Ace were never favourable to his game which was developed for Fast HC, Grass and indoor Carpet, IE: USO, Wim, WTC & YF. Throw in Cin and IW (fast through the air but slow surface].
BTW he wasn't useless in slow surfaces, just not his best.

I was thinking on the faster courts only.

 

[NatF]

Fed is > Djokovic at Wimbledon not >>>

>> at least IMO but I don't want to derail this thread talking about the Career Inflation and Asterisk eras

 

[RS]

@NatF

Djokovic could have won 2013 if you switched the draw and 2020 if it was played himself while Fed should have lost one to A Rod himself.

> is enough

 

[PMChambers]

Pete had improved significantly from 2nd round to 4th round at that Wimbledon. Anyone watching properly should notice that. Commentators mentioned the same.

Yes they did and yes he did but it wasn't Pistol Pete. Federer also lost next round and his form didn't dip. It was very close,

2001: No singles title and drop in rankingEdit
Sampras' 31-match Wimbledon win streak ended in a five set loss to Roger Federer, aged 19, in the fourth round; this was the only time the two tennis legends ever played an official professional match. At the US Open, Sampras reached the final but lost in straight sets to Lleyton Hewitt.[34] Overall, this season was the first in 12 years that Sampras did not win a single title, and he finished the year ranked No. 10, also his lowest since 1989.

 

[NatF]

@NatF

Djokovic could have won 2013 if you switched the draw and 2020 if it was played himself while Fed should have lost one to A Rod himself.

> is enough

Garbage takes. Fed would have 11 if he had Djokovic's last three draws in his mid-late 30's.

 

[PMChambers]

I was thinking on the faster courts only.

Poly affects court speed as much as court material. People like Becker where still S&V on rebound ace which was slow as and HC has ever been. Sampras will struggle at the back of the court, main due to his BH but also due to health. Long grinding matches don't suit his health.

 

[RS]

Garbage takes. Fed would have 11 if he had Djokovic's last three draws in his mid-late 30's.

Yeah 11-9 and Djokovic's H2H would still make Fed greater yes.

 

[RS]

Poly affects court speed as much as court material. People like Becker where still S&V on rebound ace which was slow as and HC has ever been. Sampras will struggle at the back of the court, main due to his BH but also due to health. Long grinding matches don't suit his health.

Fed would still dominate the circuit. Pete would have chances at say Wimbeldon and the fast USO court IMO. Pete wouldn't do as much at AO and RG is like no chance.

 

[abmk]

Yes they did and yes he did but it wasn't Pistol Pete. Federer also lost next round and his form didn't dip. It was very close,

2001: No singles title and drop in rankingEdit
Sampras' 31-match Wimbledon win streak ended in a five set loss to Roger Federer, aged 19, in the fourth round; this was the only time the two tennis legends ever played an official professional match. At the US Open, Sampras reached the final but lost in straight sets to Lleyton Hewitt.[34] Overall, this season was the first in 12 years that Sampras did not win a single title, and he finished the year ranked No. 10, also his lowest since 1989.

yes, fed's form did dip in the next match, especially mentally. which is why he lost almost all the close points in the Henman QF.
Granted 01 was a weak year for him, but Sampras played well at Wim and USO that year in 01 - his 2 biggest targets.

 

[PMChambers]

Sampras didn't win Tourney in 2001 and struggled up until USO in 2002.
Sampras played every USO match under lights at night. He needed help and everything to go right. 02 Wim lost 1st and to N io. 144ish. 01 he nearly lost to qualifier. His time was up. He. Lost 02 Cin to no one, that's usually a litmus to USO. 02 USO was everything aligning, this is rare.

 

[abmk]

Sampras didn't win Tourney in 2001 and struggled up until USO in 2002.
Sampras played every USO match under lights at night. He needed help and everything to go right. 02 Wim lost 1st and to N io. 144ish. 01 he nearly lost to qualifier. His time was up. He. Lost 02 Cin to no one, that's usually a litmus to USO. 02 USO was everything aligning, this is rare.

Sampras beat the 3 previous USO champs in USO 2001 (USO 98 champ Rafter, USO 99 champ Agassi, USO 00 champ Safin). atleast a little spent by the final and Hewitt was in the zone.
Cincy isn't a litmus test to USO anyways. Sampras won Cincy 3 times (92,97,99) and none of those years, he'd win the USO.

 

[NatF]

Yeah 11-9 and Djokovic's H2H would still make Fed greater yes.

Djokovic > Sampras then?

 

[mike danny]

2001 was the worst year since 1989. It's not really the same. This is not as bad a say Borg after 82 but it not Pistol Pete, more Nerf Gun Pete.

The following is C&P from wiki so can be misleading, but puts his form into prospective.

2001: No singles title and drop in rankingEdit
Sampras' 31-match Wimbledon win streak ended in a five set loss to Roger Federer, aged 19, in the fourth round; this was the only time the two tennis legends ever played an official professional match. At the US Open, Sampras reached the final but lost in straight sets to Lleyton Hewitt.[34] Overall, this season was the first in 12 years that Sampras did not win a single title, and he finished the year ranked No. 10, also his lowest since 1989.

He played well at Wimb and USO in 2001, even if overall he was past his prime.

 

[RS]

Djokovic > Sampras then?

No. But not so outlandish to put Pete as same Fed or even a tiny bit higher

 

[Tennis_Monk]

Most people are clueless or have never watched Sampras in action. On the courts of his era, he's king. We have far too many big 3 fanboys to have an objective analysis.

I have seen Sampras in action. He is an awesome player no doubt but he doesnt compare well against big 3 even on his fav courts.

 

[NatF]

No. But not so outlandish to put Pete as same Fed or even a tiny bit higher

Your baiting is boring mate. Let me know when you want to have an actual discussion.

 

[RS]

Your baiting is boring mate. Let me know when you want to have an actual discussion.

It was. I do put Fed a bit above Pete in a serious note.

Rest of it was actually my view.

 

[NatF]

It was. I do put Fed a bit above Pete in a serious note.

Rest of it was actually my view.

Whatever you say lol. The last three wins for Djokovic have been weak draws and mediocre play, Federer has four runner up runs where he was obviously better. No amount of stat padding will change the fact that Federer is a clearly superior grass court player, likewise with Sampras. Carry on posting your nonense if you like.

 

[RS]

Whatever you say lol. The last three wins for Djokovic have been weak draws and mediocre play, Federer has four runner up runs where he was obviously better. No amount of stat padding will change the fact that Federer is a clearly superior grass court player, likewise with Sampras. Carry on posting your nonense if you like.

Impossible to disagree with you guys as well as plenty forcing views these days should have known

 

[NatF]

Impossible to disagree with you guys and forcing views on these days should have known

Just had some bad news in my personal life so I might be a little shorter on patience, so apologies there.

I do think Djokovic has quite clearly overacheived at Wimbledon and I simply don't believe he comes close to Federer as a grass court player, Fed has an obviously higher peak and across his career at Wimbledon had much tougher competition. Djokovic at Wimbledon is the definition of vulturing with his last three titles. The fact he could have even more says it all about this era. If you switched him and Federer's places he loses several Wimbledons where as Federer gains multiple IMO. This would be the case across time and space, in a very specific set of circumstances Djokovic was able to reach 7 despite only 4 runs which you could call actually great from a level of play standpoint. Federer has at least 9 runs which I would say were great levels of play, his 8 wins plus 2008. That's the real difference between them on grass.

As far as I'm concerned at this point the narrative has shifted to Federer being the third wheel so I don't see the point in playing nice with people that are obviously wrong in my opinion. There's too much BS going around at the moment.

 

[RS]

Just had some bad news in my personal life so I might be a little shorter on patience, so apologies there.

I do think Djokovic has quite clearly overacheived at Wimbledon and I simply don't believe he comes close to Federer as a grass court player, Fed has an obviously higher peak and across his career at Wimbledon had much tougher competition. Djokovic at Wimbledon is the definition of vulturing with his last three titles. The fact he could have even more says it all about this era. If you switched him and Federer's places he loses several Wimbledons where as Federer gains multiple IMO. This would be the case across time and space, in a very specific set of circumstances Djokovic was able to reach 7 despite only 4 runs which you could call actually great from a level of play standpoint. Federer has at least 9 runs which I would say were great levels of play, his 8 wins plus 2008. That's the real difference between them on grass.

As far as I'm concerned at this point the narrative has shifted to Federer being the third wheel so I don't see the point in playing nice with people that are obviously wrong in my opinion. There's too much BS going around at the moment.

I still see > as a meme anyway I did say I still would have Federer ahead at this point. I think 9-6 would have been more like it rather than 8-7 as Fed should have closed out 2019 it does feel a little weird seeing Djokovic come closer.

I don't think sway away from Fed till Djokovic got 9 titles anyway. At 9-8 and with Djokovic not playing 2020 and Fed not closing out 19 like he should have regardless of competition being in favour of Fed in late runs I would shake still.

 

[FD3S]

I mean, it's impossible to make global statements like these. Assuming similar frames and fast grass? I'd lean to Sampras, with maybe only Fed to challenge him. Today's grass is much, much different. He'd have more of a tussle. But, people truly forget how good Pete could be on the baseline. You've got to watch his USO matches against Andre to appreciate it. He could more than hold his own from the backcourt. But at W, he usually didn't have to...serve, volley, the end. His serve is probably the best ever, honestly. Consistently good and a total clutch shot.

They really do. IMHO you can kind of tell the tennis fans that only experienced Sampras via scattered highlights or word of mouth because they tend to frame him as a be all end all S&V guy; while he might have transitioned to that style of play as his career started to wind down a little, Sampras at the peak of his powers was a terrifyingly effective all-courter, equally capable of beating down his opponents from both the backcourt or from the net.

 

[NonP]

I don’t think those high missed return %’s can be fully chalked up to playing more net-rushers when the net rushers in question don’t dominate the URS% leaderboards in the (admittedly limited) TA data set. Of the top 20, 14 are 2000’s players, 6 are 90’s guys. There’s little to indicate unreturned serve figures were higher then than now, even just amongst the top guys.

Also of the players Pete faced in finals, there’s no fast-court skew with Pioline (8 of 14 charted matches took place on clay), Courier (a disproportionate % of charted matches were on slow HC and clay), barely any with Goran (almost as many clay matches, 8, as grass matches, 9) or Agassi (who regularly missed 40-45% of his returns on grass, and 37.2% overall).

Sure, the more pronounced effect net-rushing may have on unreturned serve rates on grass (as vs. other surfaces) is a variable, but I still maintain that were Fed to face off with this caliber of returners (I mean only in terms of missed returns, no doubt Dre is an all-timer) his %’s would be a whole lot better and likely topping 40%.

Not "fully," just enough to swing it the other way by a couple points. The URS%s don't really mean a thing unless you can show whether Pete's opponents faced the URS% leaders at a disproportionate rate or not.

Also U should know I don't buy the fast-slow HC dichotomy. Seriously doubt Pete and his fellow net rushers substantially reduced their approaches at Melbourne and IW vs. Flushing and Cincy.

40% for Fed vs. Pistol's opponents isn't out of reach, again with some S&V. But....

I’ll walk back the 45% figure, you’re prob right and I didn’t think it through. Sure, it’s likely a bit too much to expect from Fed…though with a mindset to S+V I wouldn’t rule it out completely against those exact same guys. Fed is more comfortable from the baseline and his unparalleled third ball fh, while yielding positive returns (no pun intended) overall, probably brought his URS%’s down as he felt less of an impetus to go big than Pete did. Which is yet another reason why the edge in freebies (though a genuine one, which would hold regardless of circumstance) doesn’t come close to conclusively demonstrating Pete’s SW19 superiority.

This I can accept.

Which is why I highlight Fed’s success off the serve against them. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that in his most serve-dominant Wimby runs he was racking up high URS%’s against two returners that missed ‘em about as frequently as Pete’s avg finals customer.

Even vs. A-Rod he only managed it once, and that is if U round it up. Here are Fed's URS%s in their Wimby meetings:

2003 SF - 40.5% (34/84)
2004 F - 29.9% (46/154)
2005 F - 35.4% (28/79)
2009 F - 44.7% (88/197)
Average - 38.1% (196/514)

So even with (1st-)S&V he could manage just 40.5%. That '09 F was literally a once-in-a-lifetime outing from Fred. Hardly representative of his usual level even in major Fs.

And your own TA #s show A-Rod to be about on par with Boris, Jim and Cedric. Again for Fed 40% is doable against these guys w/some S&V. But not 45%.

Actually in my books we would; I’m on record maintaining ‘03 Wimby, where he S+V’d off most firsts and some seconds, was his best and peakest one, with ‘05 a close second.

Agree on his '03 Wimby run, disagree on whether he'd keep it up throughout the '90s. Unless I'm wrong about Borg going easy on S&V vs. inferior opponents (see below) I suspect your boy would play like him: S&V on 1st serves vs. top guys, but stay back more vs. lower-ranked ones.

45% against Goran, Pioline and Dre isn’t that out of the question on grass; Goran in 44 charted matches missed 43.4% of returns across all surfaces, with only 9 of 44 taking place on the slick stuff (and nearly as many on the dirt). Fed notched over 45% against Agassi twice despite never playing on grass or indoors (other than Basel ‘98, when Fed was 17).

You've probably seen those URS% lists of Wimby Fs compiled by krosero but just in case:

Sampras’ unreturned rates in his 7 Wimbledon finals:

1997 – 59.2% (Pioline 39.7%)
1994 – 53.5% (Ivanisevic 41.9%)
2000 – 52.3% (Rafter 39.5%)
1995 – 51.9% (Becker 35.7%)
1993 – 50.8% (Courier 30.1%)
1999 – 46.2% (Agassi 36.7%)
1998 – 45.8% (Ivanisevic 46.6%)

And Pete got only 12 aces past that '98 Goran over 5 sets. I've also mentioned before that Dre is the only one who kept Pistol's % of 2nd-serve points won under 50% in his 7 Fs. Those average URS%s aren't really reflected on this list, are they?

Now I'll do krosero one better and also include Pete's URS% in the '95 SF. Putting 'em together (afraid I don't have Pete's #s for the '92 SF):

1994 F - 53.5% (54/101)
1995 SF - 44.8% (69/154)
1998 F - 45.8% (71/155)
Average - 47.3% (194/410)

And that 47.3% is almost certainly closer to if not lower than 45% with the '92 SF, given Goran's dominant performance. If Sampras of all people struggled to clear 45% on grass vs. Ivanisevic with full-time S&V what makes you think Fed would match that?

But what about Dre, U say? Here's what I've got for (most of) his marquee matches vs. his botting opponents:

1992 QF (Becker) - 33.8% (52/154)
1992 SF (McEnroe) - 27.8% (22/79)
1992 F (Ivanisevic) - 48.8% (81/166)
1993 QF (Sampras) - 41.6% (52/125)
1995 SF (Becker) - 34.3% (49/143)
1999 F (Sampras) - 46.2% (43/93)
2003 4R (Philippoussis) - 50.3% (79/157)
Average - 41.2% (378/917)

Even if you (understandably) take out that '92 SF vs. Mac we're still left with 42.5% (356/838). Maybe U think Fred could top that with 1st-S&V only, but I doubt it.

Pioline's 59.2% in the '97 F is indeed "bad," but as I've noted Pistol was throwing in even more kick than usual that fortnight and indeed for the whole year, hence his higher-than-usual 1st-serve % (both tourney and year) and of course his OE-record 116/118 in service games. To put this in more perspective, even Korda, who returned the Sampras serve perhaps better than anyone else, could limit his URS% in 4R to "only" 52.2% (82/157).

That's why I rate Pete's '97 Wimby masterclass up there with Goran's own greatest serving exos. He might have given up a few aces with the extra topspin, but more than made up for it with that historic run and an even crazier summer streak that would have him holding serve a whopping 97.5% of the time (232/238) going into his next 5-setter vs. Korda*. No shame for Pioline or anyone else in giving up 59.2% of service points to that Pistol Pete.

*He also held serve the 1st 8 times in that match, which means he was winning a mind-boggling (rounded) 98% of service games at one point! Of course Korda still got him good, shaving almost 10% off his Wimby URS% down to 42.6% (81/190) and showcasing that Laveresque return of his which had Mac drooling.

I'll end with a clincher: I see 10 matches on grass for Karlovic in my file (yes, several more than this batch), and while he did top 45% in all but 1 of 'em 3 times were by a razor-thin margin (45.7% twice and 45.3%). 45% is pretty rare even today. Yes, even for the very best servers. Good ol' @slice serve ace didn't mark that as the dominance threshold for nothing.

I’ll respond to everything else tmr, posting long replies off my phone is seriously fatiguing lol.

I really dunno how y'all do this much typing on a phone, LOL.

 

[NonP]

what gazillion finals? its 7 finals for Pete. small sample size. Sorry, this is just flat out wrong.

Nobody man or woman has won more than 9 Wimbledons to date so you're just quibbling. The gist of my analysis is that among OE greats Pistol suffered the least drop in GW% in the biggest match of the year on grass compared to the previous rounds, which along with his insane finals SGW% supports the view that he brought his best when it mattered the most. How is that more "wrong" than your assumption that GW% in the QF/SF also reflects the best of these guys? Or your insistence on a 5-year window, for that matter?

Sampras (93-97) :

Service games : 93.2%
Return games : 22.2%
Total games : 58%

Federer (03-07)

Service games : 92.5%
Return games : 26.1%
Total games : 59.5%

that's not a small difference.

Sorry but this is definitely wrong. How can U include '96 for Pistol when he flamed out in the QF and was clearly showing signs of fatigue? Not to mention 03-07 is widely considered your boy's best stretch.

Let's be serious and substitute '98 instead. U know, the one he actually won. Here are Pistol's revised #s:

SGW% - 93.5% (260/278)
RGW% - 22.5% (62/275)
GW% - 58.5% (331/566)

So just a 1-point difference. And even this comparison is misleading cuz TMF was never pushed to 5 except in the '07 F like Pete was by Dre, Goran and Korda. Of course this is where you point to A-Rod in the '04 F so let's toss that out along with the '93 QF. I'll be generous and ignore the '97 4R as well. That's still 2 vs. 1, and nobody can tell me Goran wouldn't be able to play anyone close in the '95 SF and '98 F, DFs be damned.

But would it make any difference if we looked at Pete's later runs instead? Let's try '99:

SGW% - 93.4% (242/259)
RGW% - 22.8% (58/254)
GW% - 58.7% (307/523)

Obviously that QF withdrawal by Scud is a ?, but he was leading when he retired so that actually works in Fred's favor.

If we take '00 instead the #s look like this:

SGW% - 94.9% (260/274)
RGW% - 22.2% (60/270)
GW% - 59.0% (329/558)

So the soft QF/SF didn't help Pistol all that much, which is hardly surprising given that he was getting injections for his shin injury all fortnight. Maybe you still think a 0.5-1.0% difference is big, but that's really hairsplitting.

Now let's look at those differentials between tournament and late-round %s which again is the main purpose of my analysis. Here are Pete's average SGW%, RGW% and GW% in these runs followed by said differentials:

-With 1998-
SGW% - 95.5% (573/600), 2.0%
RGW% - 24.0% (141/588), 1.5%
GW% - 60.4% (734/1216), 1.9%

-With 1999-
SGW% - 95.5% (554/580), 2.1%
RGW% - 24.7% (139/562), 1.9%
GW% - 60.8% (708/1164), 2.1%

-With 2000-
SGW% - 95.7% (576/602), 0.8%
RGW% - 24.1% (142/588), 1.9%
GW% - 60.5% (736/1217), 1.5%

So he won just 1.5-2.1% less in the money rounds vs. for all tourney. Now let's see how these compare to 2003-07 Fred's (I'll assume your #s are correct and include TBs):

SGW% - 94.0% (497/529), 1.5%
RGW% - 30.3% (156/515), 4.2%
GW% - 63.0% (672/1066), 3.5%

That 3.5% is actually just over Borg's 3.4% differential between his tourney and finals GW%s. So how do their own GW%s in the money rounds compare? Let's look, tourney GW%s followed by the QF-F GW%s and then the GW% differentials:

1976 - 65.5% (133/203), 63.8% (60/94), -1.7%
1977 - 58.5% (162/277), 57.1% (72/126), -1.4%
1978 - 61.3% (144/235), 64.0% (55/86), +2.7%
1979 - 59.8% (152/254), 64.9% (63/97), +5.1%
1980 - 61.4% (151/246), 58.3% (70/120), -3.1
Total - 61.1% (742/1215), 61.2% (320/523), +0.1

The QF-F approach doesn't look so airtight now, does it? Or are you willing to admit Borg would get the better of not only Pistol but Fed, too? After all 1.6% is according to you "not a small difference."

One more thing. Recently you said this in response to my shout-out to Mac's '84 Wimby run:

eh, with hold%s going up and overall game% by top players coming down a little, that'd compensate.
Fed did face 3 SnVers in Wim 06 anyways - Henman, Mahut and Ancic.

But you miss this important axiom of S&V: it'll probably win you fewer games than baseliners against lower-ranked players/returners, but it's likely to pay dividends against top ones. It's no coincidence that the highest GW%s have come on clay which offers the highest margin for error, and this time-honored rule applies even on grass when you're a baseliner playing an inferior opponent. That's what I meant when I said "net play isn't just about winning a higher % of points." Of course 60% ain't enough to compensate for your usual % of service points won - though, again, I suspect % of net points won on serve is higher - but that shouldn't deter you from pursuing it often cuz everyone needs to finish at the net every now and then (as Fritz would ruefully tell you). And though I can't confirm it I bet Borg S&Ved more sparingly in his QF-F beatdowns on his hapless opponents who were mostly baseliners except Jimbo (though even he had largely ditched his all-court ways, apparently).

That's why Pistol's unusual level of success in the Fs is indeed revealing. With the only arguable exception of Agassi every one of his finals opponents knew how to play all-court tennis on grass, yes even Courier, and Dre made up for his relatively subpar net game with perhaps the GOAT offensive return. Against these guys S&V can be a pretty high-% strategy in the right hands cuz they can make you pay for hugging the baseline and, again, nobody connects on more than 40% of his passes, so you take the net away from them. Sure, it might have cost you sets here and there vs. the likes of Borwick, Braasch, Palmer and Gimelstob, but you don't stick to your net-rushing MO just for the points/games won. You do that for moments like this cuz a Slam F vs. a Nadal or Djokovic is not when you wanna test your net game.

People say Sampras is mentally strong for saving so many BPs with his booming serve, but they fail to understand that his very game is almost designed for big occasions. In a way he sacrificed yearlong dominance for the majors, and I say he made the right choice. I mean even Borg with his crazy GW%s in the QF/SF couldn't top Pistol in the money-est round. I just don't see how anyone can dismiss that.

FWIW your 7-year comparison is fine cuz of its greater sample size and inclusion of Fred's own L. But to say in either case your boy holds the edge is a stretch. This GW% game clearly depends on how you structure these things, and I say my approach makes the most sense.

oh and djoko benefitting with Anderson, Berretinni..
neither of 14 fed/15 fed/19 fed are that great. all could be closed out in 4 sets if focussed kept by prime ATG

See below, those were just 2 of his finals opponents. He's the only one of the Big 3 who have faced each other in 4 triumphant Wimby finals, and he still leads Fred 4 to 3 if you extend it to the Big 4. And nobody can tell me Nick played like a typical NextGen mug this past Sunday.

Besides if you really think the sample size is too small all this parsing of these guys' opponents is pretty moot, isn't it?

Peak Fed vs Peak Pete 20 matches at the USO and 10 matches YEC?

Can't believe U took that 20-0 seriously, LOL.

Anyhoo I've already answered the USO part:

Peak Sampras vs Peak Rafa at USO

I goofed and looked at PETE's 2nd serve return points won. Now, PETE's career 2nd serve points won on HC is at 54%. RAFA's career 2nd serve RPW on HC is 54%, and his 2nd serve points won is at 57%. PETE's #s...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

Ditto at the YEC. Small edge to Pistol. Don't really care about the exact #s.

Sampras never met returners like Fed, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray.

Dre is well above Fed and Rafa and just slightly below Muzz and Novak in career RGW% on grass, and no serious fan would confuse Bull's return game with his RoS itself.

And I'm looking at these guys' championship runs only. Here's how often the Big 4 played each other in the Fs they won:

Federer - Nadal (2), Murray (1)
Nadal - Federer (1)
Djokovic - Nadal (1), Federer (3)
Murray - Djokovic (1)

I can buy and in fact have already acknowledged that Novak's %s are brought down by those 4 matches, but the other guys? Not unless you consider Bull this returning stud even on grass.

And frankly it's absurd to think Pistol's SGW% would be brought down all that much vs. a similar combo of the Big 4. You're talking about the greatest server of the OE and quite possibly all time who won a higher % in his 7 Fs than in all rounds combined, and he lost serve all of 4 times in these biggest GC matches of the year. And TA charting data tells us he's just about the only top guy who wins a higher % of BPs than regular points in the biggest matches. There's not a single player in history who'd manage to break Sampras all that often in a Wimbledon final.

 

[abmk]

Nobody man or woman has won more than 9 Wimbledons to date so you're just quibbling. The gist of my analysis is that among OE greats Pistol suffered the least drop in GW% in the biggest match of the year on grass compared to the previous rounds, which along with his insane finals SGW% supports the view that he brought his best when it mattered the most. How is that more "wrong" than your assumption that GW% in the QF/SF also reflects the best of these guys? Or your insistence on a 5-year window, for that matter?

because 7 or 8 is nearly half of 13-15 matches (5 year stretch) or ~20-21 matches (7 year stretch). 7 or 8 - sample size is smaller if you look SGW/RGW in particular. I didn't insist on 5 year window, I gave the 7 year one as well.

and I'm saying that while Pete brought his best in Wim finals, the stats are exaggerated by weaker final performances compared to what fed or nadal had to face and weaker compared to his own QF-SF opponents.

Also his final opponents under-performed in comparision their own SF performances. see below
All of Goran 94, Becker 95, Pioline 97, Agassi 99, Rafter 00 under-performed by a significant enough margin compared to their SF performances. that's 5/7.

For Fed you only have Cilic who under-performed significantly compared to his own SF performance.
Roddick Wim 04, Nadal Wim 07, Roddick Wim 09, Murray Wim 12 obviously played well and close to their possible bests.
Scud Wim 03, Roddick Wim 05, Nadal Wim 06 weren't great, but not big enough under-performances compared to their own SF performances. (though they did under-perform to some extent)

Sorry but this is definitely wrong. How can U include '96 for Pistol when he flamed out in the QF and was clearly showing signs of fatigue? Not to mention 03-07 is widely considered your boy's best stretch.

Let's be serious and substitute '98 instead. U know, the one he actually won. Here are Pistol's revised #s:

SGW% - 93.5% (260/278)
RGW% - 22.5% (62/275)
GW% - 58.5% (331/566)

So just a 1-point difference. And even this comparison is misleading cuz TMF was never pushed to 5 except in the '07 F like Pete was by Dre, Goran and Korda. Of course this is where you point to A-Rod in the '04 F so let's toss that out along with the '93 QF. I'll be generous and ignore the '97 4R as well. That's still 2 vs. 1, and nobody can tell me Goran wouldn't be able to play anyone close in the '95 SF and '98 F, DFs be damned.

But would it make any difference if we looked at Pete's later runs instead? Let's try '99:

SGW% - 93.4% (242/259)
RGW% - 22.8% (58/254)
GW% - 58.7% (307/523)

Obviously that QF withdrawal by Scud is a ?, but he was leading when he retired so that actually works in Fred's favor.

If we take '00 instead the #s look like this:

SGW% - 94.9% (260/274)
RGW% - 22.2% (60/270)
GW% - 59.0% (329/558)

So the soft QF/SF didn't help Pistol all that much, which is hardly surprising given that he was getting injections for his shin injury all fortnight. Maybe you still think a 0.5-1.0% difference is big, but that's really hairsplitting.

I took the best 5 year stretches.
even if you take the other years, fed still comes out ahead.
The Dre 93, Korda 97 points aren't even that valid points at all since fed wouldn't go 5 vs them.

you have Roddick Wim 04, Nadal Wim 07, Roddick Wim 09 for Fed in the 7 year stretch (03-09). Its credit to Fed he didn't go 5 vs Roddick of Wim 04. Korda 97 and Agassi 93 are weaker opponents than Roddick Wim 04.
you have Goran Wim 95, Krajicek Wim 96 and Goran Wim 98 for Sampras in the 7 year stretch (93-99)
the first 2 in both for the 5 year stretches

my #s were excluding TBs.
Include the TBs where fed has a big edge and he comes out on top clearly enough.

Fed in TBs at Wim 03-09 in QF-F: 19/21 (90.47%).
Sampras in TBs at Wim 93-99 in QF-F: 9/14 (64.28%)