Will federer spare pete of his remaining 2 records?

Do you think federer will beat the wimbledon record of sampras?

  • Yes

    Votes: 51 58.6%

  • No but he will level it

    Votes: 23 26.4%

  • No he wont win a wimbledon again

    Votes: 13 14.9%
  • Total voters
    87
T

Thinker_145

Rookie
First of all by "spare" I dont imply that federer can do whatever the hell he wants to.

But anyways there are 2 important records that pete sampras still holds and federer is the only likely player to beat them in the near future. First is the most no. of weeks at no. 1 and the other is 7 wimbledons.

I have seen the weeks at no.1 thing being discussed here but what about pete's wimbledon record? Does it matter to federer or not so much? Do you think he will manage to win 8 or atleast 7 wimbledons? How significant is such a record in the history of tennis?

I think if federer doesnt win this wimbledon than the best he can hope for is to equal the record, if he wins it than he sure has the oppurtunity to solidy himself as the undisputed grass GOAT.

To be honest though I think it would be too cruel for pete if federer beats these 2 remaining records as well especially the wimbledon one, already federer has beaten so many of his records, I think he deserves to retain a few.
 
Chadwixx said:
Pete who? (speaking from two years in the future)
Click to expand...

Watson: Well Holmes, that answer the question of who stole our time machine...

I'd like to think that he is capable of matching the record for 7 titles, but I feel that if he doesn't do it this year, then he won't. As for the weeks at no.1....? Too tough to tell now. Let's wait a few months and see how things pan out.
 
Sampras will always be the undisputed king of Wimbledon due to his undefeated 7-0 record in Wimbledon finals and due to his beautiful classic SV style at Wimbledon.
 
TheNatural said:
Sampras will always be the undisputed king of Wimbledon due to his undefeated 7-0 record in Wimbledon finals and due to his beautiful classic SV style at Wimbledon.
Click to expand...

I hope you're not trying to cover up the fact that Sampras did lose a few matches at Wimbledon. Losing in the earlier rounds is certainly not more impressive than losing in the finals.
 
akv89 said:
I hope you're not trying to cover up the fact that Sampras did lose a few matches at Wimbledon. Losing in the earlier rounds is certainly not more impressive than losing in the finals.
Click to expand...
Exactly! Federer already has the record of 7 consecutive Wimbledon finals, a record which Sampras never had.

(Borg had 6 consecutive Wimbledon finals, and McEnroe had 5. Sampras only had 4)
 
TheNatural said:
Sampras will always be the undisputed king of Wimbledon due to his undefeated 7-0 record in Wimbledon finals and due to his beautiful classic SV style at Wimbledon.
Click to expand...

By that logic, I could claim Federer will always be the undisputed king of tennis due to his beautiful baseline game and variety. :neutral:
 
Federer won't break Sampras 6 consecutive year end Number One....He would though break the most longetivity at World No.1 and defintely break WImby record. The guy can play into his mid 30's with his playing style!

A conteder for wimby for many years....It would be weird if he doesn't bag another two wimby's!
 
P_Agony said:
By that logic, I could claim Federer will always be the undisputed king of tennis due to his beautiful baseline game and variety. :neutral:
Click to expand...


Certainly you could if you support it with the 16 slams. You could claim Fed to be the 'undisputed luxilon string baseline bashing era king, except when Nadal's fit'. :)
 
kishnabe said:
Federer won't break Sampras 6 consecutive year end Number One....He would though break the most longetivity at World No.1 and defintely break WImby record. The guy can play into his mid 30's with his playing style!

A conteder for wimby for many years....It would be weird if he doesn't bag another two wimby's!
Click to expand...

I think it's amazing that Fed has so many records. That is one that I don't think any one will catch for a long time. 16 slams is by far more important than being number one at the end of 6 consecutive years but I think it is more likely that some one else would get to 16 slams before they get to 6 consecutive years ending as the number one player in the world.
 
Pete has alot of substantial records that Roger still hasnt and probably wont ever surpass, and many wont even match:

-6 straight year end #1s.
-6 total year end #1s.
-7 Wimbledon titles
-only man to win both 5 U.S Open titles and reach 8 U.S Open finals
-most weeks ranked #1
-winning Grand Slam titles 12 years apart
 
BorisBeckerFan said:
I think it's amazing that Fed has so many records. That is one that I don't think any one will catch for a long time. 16 slams is by far more important than being number one at the end of 6 consecutive years but I think it is more likely that some one else would get to 16 slams before they get to 6 consecutive years ending as the number one player in the world.
Click to expand...

You may be right about that. Similarly with 23 consecutive SF...although to break 16 GS, you kinda need those runs of consistency in slams.

The thing about the uninterrupted streaks is they require a bit of luck, nothing to go wrong. I think Federer's record for number of consecutive weeks at #1 may prove the most difficult to beat.
 
That would be most difficult to beat and in someways cancels the fact that Pete has those 6 year end #1s if you are simply comparing stats.
 
TheNatural said:
Certainly you could if you support it with the 16 slams. You could claim Fed to be the 'undisputed luxilon string baseline bashing era king, except when Nadal's fit'. :)
Click to expand...

Nadal was capable of being fit at AO 04, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10 as well as the USO 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09.

It isn't Federer's fault that Nadal wasn't able to meet Federer at virtually every hard court slam for the 7 years.

I guess Nadal must just be the greatest champion ever. Racking up 5 French Opens, 1 Wimby, and an AO. Man what a fighter huh
 
I hope Roger does not get disrespected the same way Pete does whenever his records start to fall. Sad thing about tennis fans. Pete who? Pete Sampras is a bad ass tennis player that desereves admiration. I'm not going to get into a silly GOAT debate but why the hatred for Pete? He was and is awesome.
 
The big question is will Fed end up being the best of his own era.
 
I hope so(Fed end up being the best of his own era). However Nadal's career has overlaped Fed's enough that if he where to surpass or near Fed's records that head to head will come into play big time. If Nadal goes on and does the unthinkable and unimaginable Fed will regret not having a couple more wins under his belt. If Nadal doesn't come close to Fed's slam count then I think he could care less. Nadal wining say even 14 or 15 slams will add a whole bunch of meaning to his wins against Fed.
 
Messarger said:
Why would Federer be the Undisputed Grass Goat considering some of his Wimby wins is one the new grass?
Click to expand...

Why would FEderer or Sampras be considered undisputed GOAT (or for that matter any record) considering that they are yet to beat Tennis_monk and several other TW forum members?

I was about to play wimbledon when they decided to cover the centre court. I am not going to London to play some indoor tennis ( i can do that right here at 1 main street) . I strongly recommend we put an asterix on all of these player wins.

In fact i suggest we put an asterix on laver, borg, etc coz i wasnt born when they are playing.
 
I think if Nadal ends up with 15 slams and a U.S Open that Federer would have to end up with atleast 18 to still be considered ahead considering the head to head.
 
TheNatural said:
The big question is will Fed end up being the best of his own era.
Click to expand...

That's hypothetical and solely based on ones opinion, not a record. Nice try on attempting to derail the real thread discussion though and create another Fed VS Sampras flame war, not that we've enough of those already...
 
Sampras finished 6 years in a row number 1. Federer certainly isn't breaking that one. That's a pretty big one.
 
Thinker_145 said:
First of all by "spare" I dont imply that federer can do whatever the hell he wants to.

But anyways there are 2 important records that pete sampras still holds and federer is the only likely player to beat them in the near future. First is the most no. of weeks at no. 1 and the other is 7 wimbledons.

I have seen the weeks at no.1 thing being discussed here but what about pete's wimbledon record? Does it matter to federer or not so much? Do you think he will manage to win 8 or atleast 7 wimbledons? How significant is such a record in the history of tennis?

I think if federer doesnt win this wimbledon than the best he can hope for is to equal the record, if he wins it than he sure has the oppurtunity to solidy himself as the undisputed grass GOAT.

To be honest though I think it would be too cruel for pete if federer beats these 2 remaining records as well especially the wimbledon one, already federer has beaten so many of his records, I think he deserves to retain a few.
Click to expand...

I personally am happy to see all of the records go. I never could stand Sampras. And besides, Federer is far better then Sampras could ever be.

Now as for the records, more then likely Federer will somehow get back to number 1 for at least 2 more weeks, so I'm pretty sure this one is gone. As for the 7 Wimbledons, it's a toss up, and I agree with the OP, it really depends on whether he wins it this year or not. If he does, then I agree that Federer will win it once more after that, surpassing the 8th. There is a 3rd record though, and that is ending the year at number 1. Now Federer will not be able to break Sampras 6 consecutive years of ending as number 1, but he could equal the amount of times Sampras ended as number 1, and possibly break it. This is the one that I think he'll have the toughest time with. He's going to need some help from the other seeds such as Djokovic and Murray and Nadal to win against each other and balance out the scores a bit.

So in the end Sampras may very well still have two records left, but the most number of weeks at number 1, is probably not going to be one of them.

Jukka
 
Justdoit10 said:
In 10 yrs, there will be a new champ and his fanboys will be saying the same about Roger.
Click to expand...

See, I'm not so sure about this. I mean I realize that there are greats that are coming up, including ones we haven't heard of yet, however, it's going to be dang hard to improve on the records that Federer has. Could someone beat his GS total, it's possible, however, they're not going to have the string of records that Federer put with it. It's the fact that Federer dominated on all surfaces, and without Nadal, he would have had a few more French Opens, so no, I don't see anyone breaking these huge records anytime soon. I mean 23 straight semi-finals at GS's, are you kidding me, almost 6 straight years of making semi's and the next closest is 10. With all the greats that have been around, to be that far off that record, along with the straight final appearances at 10, and then does it again at 8, and the next closest is 5. No way is this happening anytime soon.

Jukka
 
The 23 semis is nice but doesn't mean much to me and I love Fed. Slams, #1 weeks/years, masters or atp 1000 (names have changed over the years), winning on all surfaces, etc. Semis streak although incredibly tough to break just doesn't rank up their in terms of important records to me. It was just something needed to get to the actual goal not the goal itself.
 
Right now fed's in a deep hole for the no. 1. Basically the only way he can do it is if nadal burns himself out again. So the question is will nadal make the same mistake twice?

Tying the 7 wimbledons is possible imo. He's just a single good run away and even a hail mary ivanisevic type run will suffice at this point.
 
Last edited:
BorisBeckerFan said:
I think it's amazing that Fed has so many records. That is one that I don't think any one will catch for a long time. 16 slams is by far more important than being number one at the end of 6 consecutive years but I think it is more likely that some one else would get to 16 slams before they get to 6 consecutive years ending as the number one player in the world.
Click to expand...

Federer equalled this record, if you consider a year as any 12 month period. June 2004 to June 2009 I think it was (or around the FO and Wimby at least)
 
I believe Pete also has a co-record of winning the year-ending championships 5 times (which is also difficult for Roger to break, imo).
 
Another record in the Open Era that Pete has (along with Connors, and of course Roger himself) is winning the US Open 5 times. I can see that record falling...

Pete's stint of 6 consecutive year-end #1 is amazing, but a couple of those years he "barely" made it. It came down to the YE tournament (of course, this doesn't take the record away from him). Fed's dominance was/is unsurpassed. He practically lapped the field during his prime.
 
TheNatural said:
The big question is will Fed end up being the best of his own era.
Click to expand...

He is by far the best of his own era.

Or we can play this game. Sampras isn't the best of his era. He couldn't handle a one time slam winner Krajicek.
 
Sampras didn't have a 7-14 record vs his main rival. That's pretty severe. Sampras owned all his main rivals and all the guys he played often.
For instance, Nadal lost 1 match to Cilic. Well, they only played once, so who cares?
What's significant is that he's leading the headtohead vs Fed, Djoko and Murray. By contrast Fed has a losing head to head vs both Nadal and Murray. Nadal has already outclassed Fed in the master shields area, so Fed's only hope is that Nadal doesn't win too many more slams and particularly not the USO. Otherwise, Nadal could retire with more master titles, golden career slam (as opposed to just career slam), RG/W double at a younger age than Fed, massive headtohead advantage, top records for 1 surface streak and domination. If on top of that he manages slams in the double digits, Fed's status as best of his era will be more than arguable.
ETA: Fed also really wants to avoid ever losing to Nadal at USO because then Nadal would have beaten him in all 4 slam finals (vs only 1 for Fed) and that would definitely not go well with any GOAT claim!
 
Last edited:
TheNatural said:
The big question is will Fed end up being the best of his own era.
Click to expand...

7-14 agianst his main rival...would still make Federer being the best of hjis own era...for winning 16 GS and holding the number one spot and many other records that Nadal can't obtain as of yet. Nadal has some records that Federer can't obtain at all. Still Federer achievments make him the best of his own era...he dominated 95% of the field.

If Sampras had a bad h2h like 15-30 agianst Agassi...would you still say Sampras is the best of the 90's...actually damm straight he was...he won 14gs in total but he was the dominating player for many of the years...The way you make it sound like Federer weakness with Nadal is questioning his greatness. Nope and never will. Sampras weakness with Kracijek wasn't damaging Sampras greatness and no body said he wasn'y the best of the era.

When it is all done and dusted...people will say Federer is the greatest of the 2000's...and there will be some Naysayers...Well their opinion counts but Majority wins.
 
veroniquem said:
Sampras didn't have a 7-14 record vs his main rival. That's pretty severe. Sampras owned all his main rivals and all the guys he played often.
For instance, Nadal lost 1 match to Cilic. Well, they only played once, so who cares?
What's significant is that he's leading the headtohead vs Fed, Djoko and Murray. By contrast Fed has a losing head to head vs both Nadal and Murray. Nadal has already outclassed Fed in the master shields area, so Fed's only hope is that Nadal doesn't win too many more slams and particularly not the USO. Otherwise, Nadal could retire with more master titles, golden career slam (as opposed to just career slam), RG/W double at a younger age than Fed, massive headtohead advantage, top records for 1 surface streak and domination. If on top of that he manages slams in the double digits, Fed's status as best of his era will be more than arguable.
Click to expand...

I think Federer's 5-6 head to head with Murray is completely irrelevant. 5-6 overall but 2-0 in slam finals means Federer overall is clearly better in the head to head anyway since he thumped Murray in the more meaningful matches and is almost tied overall. Plus if Murray doesnt win a slam he is even less of a meaningful player in this era than Krajicek or Stich.

Federer's head to head with Nadal is a whole other story though. You are right Sampras has nothing like that vs a "main rival".
 
veroniquem said:
Sampras didn't have a 7-14 record vs his main rival. That's pretty severe. Sampras owned all his main rivals and all the guys he played often.
Click to expand...

Something tells me I should not be wasting time with a hopeless **** like you -- but ...

Sampras sucked red bricks on clay. So, conveniently he never played most of his main rivals, several times on clay, unlike Fed and Nadal who've played 12 times. It's the same stupid argument repeated ad nauseum by the ****s, but it would have made more sense for Federer to lose to nobodies on clay to bolster his h2h against Nadal.

The Fed-Sampras argument is long over -- get over it..

Now Nadal could eventually overtake Fed, it remains to be seen if his knees hold up for another 2-3 years, but ya he's got a good chance of doing it.
 
Last edited:
Roger, IMO, will win two more at least. Probably this year's. And he should get that number one back for at least a few weeks at some point. At least.

I've always enjoyed Roger at the USO more personally.
 
I would have loved to Sampras's h2h against Nadal after 12 meetings on clay. Main rival my ass. Sampras would probably fail to win a single meeting against Nadal on clay. After years of competing and fighting hard to win RG by actually getting finals, Federer gets torn down for getting owned. Sampras got his ass handed to him before the final weekend even rolled around and it is all perfectly fine. That man had some mental fortitude.

Another funny thing. Sampras is a grass court giant because he never lost a grass court final. Apparently, you get more GOAT points for getting straight setted by the eventual champion in the rd of 16 as opposed to 9-7 in the fifth.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sunny_cali said:
Something tells me I should not be wasting time with a hopeless **** like you -- but ...

Sampras sucked red bricks on clay. So, conveniently he never played most of them several times on clay, unlike Fed and Nadal who've played 12 times. It's the same stupid argument repeated ad nauseum by the ****s, but it would have made more sense for Federer to lose to nobodies on clay to bolster his h2h against Nadal.

The Fed-Sampras argument is long over -- get over it..

Now Nadal could eventually overtake Fed, it remains to be seen if his knees hold up for another 2-3 years, but ya he's got a good chance of doing it.
Click to expand...

However Federer does not trail Nadal in head to head strictly due to clay. While Nadal completely owns Federer on clay with a 10-2 record, Federer only leads Nadal on other surfaces 6-4. So Nadal fully deserves his head to head lead as Federer cant own Nadal on any surfaces like Nadal does Federer on clay.

If Sampras played Becker more often on clay he would lead the head to head by even more as he is the better clay courter. If Sampras played Edberg on clay often they would probably split meetings there. If Sampras played Courier on clay often he would still lead the head to head as he completely dominates Courier on other surfaces, and can sometimes beat Jim on clay (eg 96 French). If Sampras played Agassi on clay more often he still leads the head to head as Sampras wins the majority of matches on other surfaces and their clay head to head is nearly tied (3-2 Agassi). And if Sampras played Muster or Bruguera more often on clay he again still would lead the head to head as he has beaten both on clay so could post occasional wins and he would win almost every match vs them on other surfaces. Anyway neither are the amongst the main rivals of Sampras of that era overall the way Nadal clearly is for Federer.
 
Justdoit10 said:
I would have loved to Sampras's h2h against Nadal after 12 meetings on clay. Main rival my ass. Sampras would probably fail to win a single meeting against Nadal on clay. After years of competing and fighting hard to win RG by actually getting finals, Federer gets torn down for getting owned. Sampras got his ass handed to him before the final weekend even rolled around and it is all perfectly fine. That man had some mental fortitude.

Another funny thing. Sampras is a grass court giant because he never lost a grass court final. Apparently, you get more GOAT points for getting straight setted by the eventual champion in the rd of 16 as opposed to 9-7 in the fifth.
Click to expand...

Sampras would lead Nadal at this point in Nadal's career by more than a 6-4 ratio on non clay surfaces. It would probably be something like 8-2 or 9-1 in fact. So the argument of "because of all those clay meetings" would hold much more weight. Since Nadal and Federer are almost tied in non clay meetings, while Nadal owns Federer on clay, that arguments holds little ground for Federer.
 
davey25 said:
Sampras would lead Nadal at this point in Nadal's career by more than a 6-4 ratio on non clay surfaces. It would probably be something like 8-2 or 9-1 in fact. So the argument of "because of all those clay meetings" would hold much more weight. Since Nadal and Federer are almost tied in non clay meetings, while Nadal owns Federer on clay, that arguments holds little ground for Federer.
Click to expand...
8-2 and 9-1? lol right. Sampras wasnt god almighty. He was nowhere near as consistent as Federer throughout his career. Nadal could have definitely beaten him on surfaces outside of clay. Nadal is a proven player on grass and hardcourts. I can pull out a list of tons of players that have defeated sampras on surfaces outside clay. Do you really think Nadal, one of the greats of the game, will get walloped that bad?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
davey25 said:
Sampras would lead Nadal at this point in Nadal's career by more than a 6-4 ratio on non clay surfaces. It would probably be something like 8-2 or 9-1 in fact. So the argument of "because of all those clay meetings" would hold much more weight. Since Nadal and Federer are almost tied in non clay meetings, while Nadal owns Federer on clay, that arguments holds little ground for Federer.
Click to expand...

Are you sure you're not blinded by the fact that Sampras is your idol?...

Anyway

Here it is, something a bit more objective:

Federer>Sampras (all surfaces, career performances)
Sampras>Agassi
Nadal>Agassi( still premature, but this is/will be true)

Fact is, Nadal would school Sampras or Agassi on clay, and would have some decent results against the two on the other surfaces.

Federer got to so many finals on clay against Rafa, that is the ultimate validation that he is the 2nd best clay courter of this era, while Sampras barely made a semi at RG some time ago. It's pretty uncomparable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Federer's 2010 job: Breaking/equaling even more records.
Replies
21
Views
2K
Hood_Man
Hood_Man
S
What records do you think Federer will equal/break in 2010?
Replies
20
Views
1K
Agassifan
A
S
Sampras still owns 2 huge records...
Replies
47
Views
3K
5th Element
5th Element
M
Federer and possible broken records?
Replies
16
Views
2K
xanctus
xanctus
T
Records for Federer to go for
Replies
18
Views
2K
kevvycore
K
Back
Top