Will federer spare pete of his remaining 2 records?

[powerangle]

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.

But Nadal and Federer haven't even met that many times in hardcourt major finals. You can say "AO 09" but that's one final. Federer is about 5 years older so he is more on the decline of his career as well, while Nadal is more likely closer to his peak. I'm pretty sure the head to head would swing closer to Fed's favor if they played in more hardcourt major finals (not Fed's fault that Nadal doesn't reach them with any consistency, like Fed was able to reach FO finals with consistency).

 

[davey25]

But Nadal and Federer haven't even met that many times in hardcourt major finals. You can say "AO 09" but that's one final. Federer is about 5 years older so he is more on the decline of his career as well, while Nadal is more likely closer to his peak. I'm pretty sure the head to head would swing closer to Fed's favor if they played in more hardcourt major finals (not Fed's fault that Nadal doesn't reach them with any consistency, like Fed was able to reach FO finals with consistency).

You forget Nadal won his first ever meeting with Federer on hard courts 6-3, 6-3 when Nadal was only 17 and a nobody on tour. He then was mere points from a 3 straight set win in the big Miami final a year later, now aged 18. He then came back from losing the first set 6-1 vs an on fire Federer that day to beat Federer in 3 sets in the Dubai final on a fast hard court less than a year later, now aged 19. In between that was their first ever meeting on clay in the French Open semis. So after their first 4 matches Nadal actually led 2-1 on hard courts and choked away the win in his only loss, and 3-1 overall with only 1 meeting on clay. This was definitely vs "prime Federer" beyond any doubt, and not really prime Nadal either.

I dont see anyway around the fact Nadal is much more of a threat to Federer on any surface than Federer is to Nadal on clay. Thus Nadal's head to head lead and upper hand in the head to head is completely valid.

 

[powerangle]

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.

If Sampras was able to lead all his main rivals so much (except on clay), how come he wasn't able to win AO, Wimby, and USO in a single calendar year, in multiple years then? Why this inconsistency from him?

Fact is, against the field, Fed has been much greater.

 

[dh003i]

The Nadal-****s are so interested in denigrating Federer that they're willing to take a Pyhrric "victory" by saying Sampras would own Nadal outside of clay...just to try to make Federer look bad.

Fact of the matter is, Nadal is arguably the best on clay of all time, and a great player on other surfaces. Not as great as Federer, but still a great player. It isn't surprising that the H2H is close outside of clay, especially when Nadal is an all-time great in his own right and has a game that fits perfectly to be a bad matchup for Federer.

Unlike what the *******s say, this hardly means he's a better player. Tennis isn't like boxing, thankfully, where defeating the champion makes you the champion. It is about winning tournaments. It is about how well you play vs. the field. Federer is obviously better against the field than Nadal is, as illustrated by his # of years at #1, slams per year in his prime, etc. Is H2H important? Yes, but only because it contributes to a player's rank, titles, slams, etc. When Nadal beat Federer those times in GS finals, he won GS's that Federer didn't. It's 5 GS Nadal has that Federer could have had.

The H2H is already reflected in their slam count: 16 vs. a possible 21 for Federer, had he won all the slam finals vs. Nadal; and 7 vs. a possible 2 for Nadal, had he lost all the slam finals vs. Federer. (actually, 16 vs. a possible 22 for Federer, and 7 vs. a possible 1 for Nadal, considering the 2005 FO SF). The H2H is also reflected in both of their ranking, and beating Federer is what allowed Nadal to become #1 in 2008 and keep the ranking for half of 2009. So that's the significance of the H2H.

It has almost no significance inandof itself, and the attempts of Nadal-****s to count the H2H twice are simply that: double-counting. Federer could have had 21 or 22 GS, instead he has 16. The H2H is already reflected in that. He could have been #1 for 5 or even 6 straight years, instead it was for 4 years.

Nadal gets owned by a variety of players who are bad matchups for him on HC, not any one in particular because they aren't consistent. The attempt of Nadal-fans to discount Cilic's win over him are amusing. It wasn't just Cilic, but also Murray, Tsonga, and a host of other players who have consistently prevented him from thus-far getting to a USO final, and have prevented him from getting to more than 1 AO final. It all counts. It doesn't fit very well in the simplistic "significant H2H" record that Nadal-fans like to tout, so they discard it.

If we create a modified H2H to look at tournaments won vs. those entered, where both Nadal and Federer entered the tournament, that H2H is actually more important and looks very different.

But I tell ya what, if Nadal fans insist on disparaging Federer, fine. Federer isn't really that good of a player, he had a week era, got lucky, got out-choked by his opponents to win 16 GS, etc. So yea, this guy is a clown. That hardly makes Nadal beating him particularly impressive.

 

[davey25]

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.

No player is my idol. I defend Sampras since he is insanely underrated on this forum especialy by *******s who like to potray him as some second rate champion now that Federer has surpassed his slam record (and yet still not many of his other records). I could say Federer is your idol or maybe Berdych, LOL!

You forget tennis is about matchups and Sampras is a much tougher matchup for Nadal than Federer on any surface except clay. Sampras has a far superior serve, Nadal actually doesnt have all that much trouble returning Federer's serve except on grass if Federer is serving lights out. However Sampras's serve even Agassi can hardly return, so imagine Nadal returning it well. Sampras would not get involved in long baseline rallies with Nadal. He would attack Nadal's weaker serves which Federer does not hardly ever do, which would make Nadal feel more pressure when he was serving in general. He would try and end points quicker in general. And lastly he would come in alot more and he is a much better volleyer than Federer as well. Nadal would not get away with his usual returning stance against Sampras either.

 

[dh003i]

You forget Nadal won his first ever meeting with Federer on hard courts 6-3, 6-3 when Nadal was only 17 and a nobody on tour. He then was mere points from a 3 straight set win in the big Miami final a year later, now aged 18. He then came back from losing the first set 6-1 vs an on fire Federer that day to beat Federer in 3 sets in the Dubai final on a fast hard court less than a year later, now aged 19. In between that was their first ever meeting on clay in the French Open semis. So after their first 4 matches Nadal actually led 2-1 on hard courts and choked away the win in his only loss, and 3-1 overall with only 1 meeting on clay. This was definitely vs "prime Federer" beyond any doubt, and not really prime Nadal either.

I dont see anyway around the fact Nadal is much more of a threat to Federer on any surface than Federer is to Nadal on clay. Thus Nadal's head to head lead and upper hand in the head to head is completely valid.

So what? Nadal is much more THREATENED by the rest of the field on those surfaces, particularly at slams. See my above post which explains the fallacy of your attempted double-counting.

 

[davey25]

So what? Nadal is much more THREATENED by the rest of the field on those surfaces, particularly at slams. See my above post which explains the fallacy of your attempted double-counting.

You forget this is not about Nadal being superior to Federer at this point. Nobody is seriously arguing that unless Nadal gets very close to Federer in slam count, which he is a long way from being right now. This about the fact Federer is legitimately owned by the 2nd best player of his own generation. Something that is not even close to true of any other GOAT candidate, and certainly not of Sampras.

 

[powerangle]

You forget this is not about Nadal being superior to Federer at this point. Nobody is seriously arguing that unless Nadal gets very close to Federer in slam count, which he is a long way from being right now. This about the fact Federer is legitimately owned by the 2nd best player of his own generation. Something that is not even close to true of any other GOAT candidate, and certainly not of Sampras.

That's what Sampras has over Federer.

But Federer has 3 slams in one year, 3 different times, something Sampras never came close to doing. I think I will take the 3 slams in a year, 3 different years, and take a losing h-2-h against the 2nd best player in my generation and arguiably GOAT on clay.

You can choose a winning h-2-h if that's your cake. Be my guest.
Fact is, Federer outshines Sampras in areas more comprehensively than Sampras has outdone Federer.

 

[davey25]

That's what Sampras has over Federer.

But Federer has 3 slams in one year, 3 different times, something Sampras never came close to doing. I think I will take the 3 slams in a year, 3 different years, and take a losing h-2-h against the 2nd best player in my generation and arguiably GOAT on clay.

You can choose a winning h-2-h if that's your cake. Be my guest.
Fact is, Federer outshines Sampras in areas more comprehensively than Sampras has outdone Federer.

Sampras isnt the only other GOAT candidate. Laver and Borg also were never owned by any major rival. And even Gonzales in his prime never was either. Federer is the only GOAT candidate who was, and it is why it weighs heavily against him for some people and justifiably so.

 

[piece]

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.

You actually write some pretty good posts when you're not comparing Federer to Sampras.

Let's see, Nadal beat Federer on hardcourt in 2004, 2006 and 2009, for a total of 3 wins over Federer on hardcourts. In 2004, Federer only lost 3 other matches on hardcourt for that whole year, and only 2 other matches on hardcourt excluding the Olympics. Sampras never had such a good year. In 2006, Federer only lost 1 other match on hardcourt the whole year, again Sampras never had such a good year. In 2009 Nadal played the hardcourt tennis of his life and only scraped it out in five sets.

In the first two cases Sampras would unlikely have being playing at a level as high as Federer, as evidenced by Federer's far superior hard court records those two years compared to any numbers Sampras ever put up on that surface. In the third case, I see no reason why a declining Sampras (if we're to be fair, since in '09 Fed was declining too) would be able to handle Nadal in his best ever hardcourt form on a slow hardcourt.

On grass, Nadal has beaten Federer once. It was one of his best ever grasscourt performances, and it was in heavy conditions, with today's higher bouncing surface. Sampras did not play a particularly good Wimbledon in 1998, so I see no reason to favour him over Nadal other than his impeccable grass court record. However, Federer's grasscourt record in terms of win/loss ratio and sets win/loss ratio is superior to Sampras's, so obviously in this case grass court credentials were not the best method for picking the winner. I see no reason to give this match to Sampras.

So on hardcourt, because of Federer's superior record, I see no reason to favour Sampras (who has a worse record) over Nadal when Federer couldn't manage it. Same goes for grass. You might want to argue that Federer has a matchup issue with Nadal and since Sampras wouldn't have to contend with the same issue he'd have the better record against Nadal. This is PURE speculation. People on this forum often talk about matchups like it's obvious only to be proven wrong by actual results. For instance, I could argue that Sampras's weaker backhand would be even easier picking for Nadal than Federer's. And it could not be retorted that Sampras would attack too much for that to be an issue, because today's conditions don't favour Sampras's relentless attacking - they would favour Nadal and his peerless passing shots. Now I'm not saying this is true for sure, but just pointing out that meaningless speculation can favour both sides.

I see no reason to think sampras would have an 8-2 or 9-1 record against Nadal on non-clay surfaces.

 

[powerangle]

Sampras isnt the only other GOAT candidate. Laver and Borg also were never owned by any major rival. And even Gonzales in his prime never was either. Federer is the only GOAT candidate who was, and it is why it weighs heavily against him for some people and justifiably so.

But I never argued that Federer is greater than Laver, for example. The preceding posts was about Sampras versus Federer (and I have seen you defend that Sampras is greater than Federer, though I may be wrong, feel free to correct me).

I think Fed's cumulative achievements outweight Sampras' cumulative achievements, and that's why I think Fed > Sampras in greatness.

 

[piece]

You forget this is not about Nadal being superior to Federer at this point. Nobody is seriously arguing that unless Nadal gets very close to Federer in slam count, which he is a long way from being right now. This about the fact Federer is legitimately owned by the 2nd best player of his own generation. Something that is not even close to true of any other GOAT candidate, and certainly not of Sampras.

Yes well no other GOAT candidate got straight-setted in the middle of their prime at a slam on the surface they are supposed to be the best ever on (whilst attempting to defend their title, I might add).

P.S. I'm being ironic - neither stat matters.

 

[dh003i]

You forget this is not about Nadal being superior to Federer at this point. Nobody is seriously arguing that unless Nadal gets very close to Federer in slam count, which he is a long way from being right now. This about the fact Federer is legitimately owned by the 2nd best player of his own generation. Something that is not even close to true of any other GOAT candidate, and certainly not of Sampras.

Only because Federer has been good enough on his worst surface to get to the finals. Your logic is idiotic and fails. By that logic, Federer would have done "better" to fail to reach all those FO finals. Sampras would have been clobbered by a number of clay-court specialists had he done better at the FO. He might not have had losing records vs. any of them anyways, but that just shows how stupid the H2H argument is.

According to the H2H "argument", it is better to lose early than to get to the better opponents, or it is better to distribute your losing equally among 3 players rather than all to 1. Reality is, not winning 4 FO titles is just as bad whether it is because of 1 player (Nadal) or a variety of players (as in Sampras' case). And getting to the FO final is better than not getting there.

How about this argument: Sampras was lucky to never have a rival as consistent and great as Federer's rival Nadal has been?

I'm not interested in debating whether Federer or Sampras is the greater player (although the arguments in favor of Federer are obvious and aren't fallacies, like your arguments). However, I will say that you can't use Sampras' failure to get to the FO finals even a single time as an argument that he's better than Federer; you can't use Federer getting to so many finals as an argument against him. And to use the H2H as some kind of argument against him as a GOAT candidate is ridiculous because tennis is not about H2H's: it is about winning championships and being ranked #1. The "H2H" vs. the field at important events in a player's prime would be more important...and there hasn't been a player in history who has dominated tennis as thoroughly on that basis in terms of winning %, events won, & GS won...except for Laver. Sampras never had a 3-slam year, and his best years in terms of slams & win % were maybe on par with Federer's 2009 year.

You seem to think that Sampras is under-rated because most now consider Federer a greater player. That hardly constitutes him being "under-rated". Nor is Federer under-rated by those who consider Sampras a greater player. It is debatable. I'll say is H2H isn't a particularly relevant criteria (b/c of idiotic results coming from it, like it being better to lose early, or like it being better to lose 9 times to 3 different players than 9 times to 1 player, in failing to win a tournament, when both are just as bad). No one who brings up the H2H argument has ever (nor will they ever) had a satisfactory answer to the double-counting going on when you look at H2H & GS wins & ranking, nor any of the other idiocies resulting from H2H arguments.

Sorry, but Sampras is not "insanely underrated". Only a delusional **** would say that. He is considered by almost everyone to be an all-time first-tier great, a clear candidate for GOAT, even if most think Federer and Laver are above him there. I rank Sampras as the 3rd best & greatest player of all time (in the Open Era), and I think the worst just about anyone could rank him would be 4th if you put Borg over him. Because Laver won the GS, I can't rank Federer over him and consider it a tie for 1st. Borg I put at 4th, and Nadal may very well join him or even bump him down a notch.

Btw, if someone ranked Sampras & Borg above Federer, I wouldn't say that person is "insanely underrating" Federer. Both did things that Federer hasn't and won't before his career is over (6 yr-end #1 & the repeated Wimby-FO doubles), and that's their subjective evaluation. If someone were to say Federer isn't a 1st-tier all time great, I'd say that's insanely underrating him.

 

[davey25]

But I never argued that Federer is greater than Laver, for example. The preceding posts was about Sampras versus Federer (and I have seen you defend that Sampras is greater than Federer, though I may be wrong, feel free to correct me).

I think Fed's cumulative achievements outweight Sampras' cumulative achievements, and that's why I think Fed > Sampras in greatness.

I think Federer and Sampras each have edges over the other at this point.

Sampras:

-More Wimbledons
-More overall success at U.S Open at this point though both have 5 titles
-More ATP World Championship titles, much better record indoors overall
-Davis Cup success
-More weeks at #1
-the 6 straight year end #1s, which Federer will never match consecutively and has yet to match todal
-At this point more longevity (eg- slams 12 years apart)


Federer:

-Far better French Open record
-Better overall clay court record
-Better Australian Open record
-More dominance overall on tour in his peak years
-The years winning 3 slams of course
-5 U.S Opens in a row, greater period of dominance there than Sampras


So IMO it is very close. I happen to give Sampras the edge because:

1. I feel overall the competition Sampras faced was alot tougher than that what Federer has faced overall especialy considering the quality of the field from 2002-2007.

2. I have watched both play many times and I just feel Sampras has a better overall game and a higher peak level of play.

3. Like I have said Sampras has never been owned by a main rival the way Federer is by Nadal.


If others disagree that is fine, but of course anyone that dares to suggest they feel Sampras is superior to Federer is in store for a slew of personal attacks and insults from the ******* army.

 

[piece]

Btw, if someone ranked Sampras & Borg above Federer, I wouldn't say that person is "insanely underrating" Federer. Both did things that Federer hasn't and won't before his career is over (6 yr-end #1 & the repeated Wimby-FO doubles), and that's their subjective evaluation. If someone were to say Federer isn't a 1st-tier all time great, I'd say that's insanely underrating him.

If someone ranked Sampras above Federer on the basis of that^ record I'd say they're "insanely" overrating that record. It's not one of great importance IMO

 

[piece]

I think Federer and Sampras each have edges over the other at this point.

Sampras:

-More Wimbledons
-More overall success at U.S Open at this point though both have 5 titles
-More ATP World Championship titles, much better record indoors overall
-Davis Cup success
-More weeks at #1
-the 6 straight year end #1s, which Federer will never match consecutively and has yet to match todal
-At this point more longevity (eg- slams 12 years apart)
.

I'd debate that one. Federer has 6 consecutive finals and 5 consecutive titles.

 

[jukka1970]

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.

Really, and why would you say it doesn't mean much. Considering no one is going to get close to that in our lifetime. And yes, there are plenty of others to list, but why embarass Sampras any more then we have to.

 

[davey25]

I'd debate that one. Federer has 6 consecutive finals and 5 consecutive titles.

Well like I said on my Federer edges Federer definitely gets the edge for greater dominance at the U.S Open because of his consecutive titles and finals there. I give Sampras the edge in overall success for all his extra finals, semis, quarters at this point. Of course that could change in the future. Right now Federer has 5 titles (like Sampras), 1 other final, and a bunch of round of 16 losses career wise.

 

[dh003i]

The "no other GOAT candidate got XYZ'ed" isn't an argument against that GOAT candidate per se. You have to establish that XYZ is important. Well, no GOAT candidate is a GOAT candidate because of their H2H vs. anyone. Tennis isn't about H2H's, it just isn't important overall; and to argue it is is to double-count, when you also count ranking, slams, record, etc.

You want to talk about meaningful unique things a GOAT candidate has done or hasn't done, you have to look elsewhere.

Laver: no one else in the Open Era has ever won he calendar year GS. (ironically, he never won a slam after that)

Federer: 5 Wimby & 5 USO in a row, 16 slams total, 3x 3 slams a year, the 2005 & 2006 records.

Sampras: 6 straight years ending #1, 7 Wimbledon victories, 5 USO victories.

Borg: 5 Wimby in a row paired with 6 FO and the Wimby-FO double 3 times.

 

[jukka1970]

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!

Well there's a second way of looking at this as well, and that would be that most of the matches came on clay, and the reason for that is that Nadal isn't as consistent at the other slams. Pretty hard to work on the H2H when the second seed can't make 3 slam finals in a row. And as it's been said by others, H2H isn't a factor of being GOAT, sorry. It's what a person's accomplished. And Nadal has a long ways to go to enter GOAT category.

 

[BorisBeckerFan]

Really, and why would you say it doesn't mean much. Considering no one is going to get close to that in our lifetime. And yes, there are plenty of others to list, but why embarass Sampras any more then we have to.

I just think it's not anything of note. The 16 Slams are of note. The Year End Championships are of note. Fed's masters are of note. Fed's succes on all surfaces is of note. Fed's time at number one is of note. I just don't see how the semis thing is so important. I don't even think it matters to Fed. I think he would trade all the semis where he didn't win a slam for one more slam. Semis is not the goal. I doubt reaching the semis is Fed's goal when he enters a slam. When people look back on the past they rarely speak of the semifinal matches. It's just a needed step along the way of getting the trophy.

 

[powerangle]

I think Federer and Sampras each have edges over the other at this point.

Sampras:

-More Wimbledons
-More overall success at U.S Open at this point though both have 5 titles
-More ATP World Championship titles, much better record indoors overall
-Davis Cup success
-More weeks at #1
-the 6 straight year end #1s, which Federer will never match consecutively and has yet to match todal
-At this point more longevity (eg- slams 12 years apart)


Federer:

-Far better French Open record
-Better overall clay court record
-Better Australian Open record
-More dominance overall on tour in his peak years
-The years winning 3 slams of course
-5 U.S Opens in a row, greater period of dominance there than Sampras


So IMO it is very close. I happen to give Sampras the edge because:

1. I feel overall the competition Sampras faced was alot tougher than that what Federer has faced overall especialy considering the quality of the field from 2002-2007.
2. I have watched both play many times and I just feel Sampras has a better overall game and a higher peak level of play.

3. Like I have said Sampras has never been owned by a main rival the way Federer is by Nadal.


If others disagree that is fine, but of course anyone that dares to suggest they feel Sampras is superior to Federer is in store for a slew of personal attacks and insults from the ******* army.

First bolded part: that's a catch-22. Sampras wasn't able to dominate the field like Federer could, so his (Sampras') contemporaries were able to rack up more slams a piece, and therefore they have greater resumes.

Federer dominated more and won more slams, not leaving much for his contemporaries, so other players of his generation have fewer slams to even win from.

Would Sampras be touted as less great if he won more slams (and his contemporaries winning less slams because of that)?


And also, since anyone that dare says Federer is greater than Sampras must be a *******, yes? Nice logic...

 

[TMF]

I think Federer and Sampras each have edges over the other at this point.

Sampras:

-More Wimbledons
Yes, for now. But if Roger win one more, then he's ahead of Pete
-More overall success at U.S Open at this point though both have 5 titles
Nope. 5 straight USO and 6 straight finals is better than Pete. Plus, Pete got killed by the young Hewitt and Safin.
-More ATP World Championship titles, much better record indoors overall
Yes, for now
-Davis Cup success
DC is a team sport, not an individual achievement. Regardless if a player is great or a mediocre player, he rely on the strength of the team to win.
-More weeks at #1
one more week than Federer(286: 285). Not much to brag about. But roger has 237 consecutive weeks.
-the 6 straight year end #1s, which Federer will never match consecutively and has yet to match todal
Roger has 4 yrs end #1, but again he's got 237 weeks, something Pete was not even close.
-At this point more longevity (eg- slams 12 years apart)
Yes, for now.

Read the part in bold.

 

[BorisBeckerFan]

Well like I said on my Federer edges Federer definitely gets the edge for greater dominance at the U.S Open because of his consecutive titles and finals there. I give Sampras the edge in overall success for all his extra finals, semis, quarters at this point. Of course that could change in the future. Right now Federer has 5 titles (like Sampras), 1 other final, and a bunch of round of 16 losses career wise.

To me this as bad as the big deal being made over the semis streak. We would use quarters and semis as a measuring stick? Even finals is debateable. Winning the whole tournament is what counts. To both Fed and or Sampras fans, why are these finals and semis so important to you? I liked Becker and utterly hated the times he lost at Wimbledon. I would never bring those up to dusccuss how good he was. I would use the times he won an entire tournament as examples of how good he was.

 

[davey25]

First bolded part: that's a catch-22. Sampras wasn't able to dominate the field like Federer could, so his (Sampras') contemporaries were able to rack up more slams a piece, and therefore they have greater resumes.

Federer dominated more and won more slams, not leaving much for his contemporaries, so other players of his generation have fewer slams to even win from.

Sorry but guys like Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, and Nalbandian would never be in the same league of ability as guys like Agassi, Becker, or Courier. The secondary threats from 1992-1996 were on atleast on with the best guys outside of Federer from 2002-2006. Davydenko is a poor mans Kafelnikov yet occupies a higher place in the game consistently today than Kafelnikov could back then (despite winning 0 slams to Kafelnikov's 2). A very old Agassi had very good head to heads with Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, Ferrero, and Nalbandian in their primes. An 34 and 35 year old Agassi was Federer's toughest opponent before Nadal emerged. Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Djokovic, or Murray would not be overly great champions who would win a whole bunch of slams in any era. There is nothing that would convince me those players are in the same league as the top players of the early and mid 90s.

Would Sampras be touted as less great if he won more slams (and his contemporaries winning less slams because of that)?

If Sampras had 2 more slams to be tied with Federer it wouldnt make much difference in how people view the other top players of that era. There were alot of actually great players of that era besides Sampras and Agassi. There are none in the last almost decade outside of Federer and Nadal.

And also, since anyone that dare says Federer is greater than Sampras must be a *******, yes? Nice logic...

I did not say say anyone who says Federer is greater than Sampras is a *******. However this forum is full of *******s who attack and insult anyone who suggest their hero is not head and shoulders above Sampras or even the undisputed GOAT.

 

[dh003i]

To me this as bad as the big deal being made over the semis streak. We would use quarters and semis as a measuring stick? Even finals is debateable. Winning the whole tournament is what counts. To both Fed and or Sampras fans, why are these finals and semis so important to you? I liked Becker and utterly hated the times he lost at Wimbledon. I would never bring those up to dusccuss how good he was. I would use the times he won an entire tournament as examples of how good he was.

I agree with this. The SF streak is indeed very impressive, who knows if anyone will ever come close. It's an amazing feat of consistency. But greatness > consistency. I can assure you Federer would rather have 1 more FO win rather than all of those SF's.

 

[gold soundz]

I agree with this. The SF streak is indeed very impressive, who knows if anyone will ever come close. It's an amazing feat of consistency. But greatness > consistency. I can assure you Federer would rather have 1 more FO win rather than all of those SF's.

I can't see him winning another French.

 

[BorisBeckerFan]

Sorry but guys like Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, and Nalbandian would never be in the same league of ability as guys like Agassi, Becker, or Courier. The secondary threats from 1992-1996 were on atleast on with the best guys outside of Federer from 2002-2006. Davydenko is a poor mans Kafelnikov yet occupies a higher place in the game consistently today than Kafelnikov could back then (despite winning 0 slams to Kafelnikov's 2). A very old Agassi had very good head to heads with Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, Ferrero, and Nalbandian in their primes. An 34 and 35 year old Agassi was Federer's toughest opponent before Nadal emerged. Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Djokovic, or Murray would not be overly great champions who would win a whole bunch of slams in any era. There is nothing that would convince me those players are in the same league as the top players of the early and mid 90s.



If Sampras had 2 more slams to be tied with Federer it wouldnt make much difference in how people view the other top players of that era. There were alot of actually great players of that era besides Sampras and Agassi. There are none in the last almost decade outside of Federer and Nadal.



I did not say say anyone who says Federer is greater than Sampras is a *******. However this forum is full of *******s who attack and insult anyone who suggest their hero is not head and shoulders above Sampras or even the undisputed GOAT.

Agree. Let's say Pete won either the Wimbeldon Richard won, or the US open he lost to Leyton or Marat. How would that affect Agassi, Becker, Courier, Kuerten, Edberg, Kafelnikov, Stich, Rafter? It wouldn't.

 

[dh003i]

Sorry but guys like Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, and Nalbandian would never be in the same league of ability as guys like Agassi, Becker, or Courier.

So you say. Sampras says Hewitt is vastly underrated. Safin is a guy who would've been a great player if not so inconsistent. If you ask me are Hewitt or Safin on par with Becker or Courrier, my off-the-cuff answer is probably going to be no. But that's a sloppy answer solely dependant on how much they won, which had a lot to do with Federer being so great.

If you wanted to give a better answer, you'd ave to really analyze the game of those players in detail: movement, serve, forehand, backhand, court positioning, volleys, mental game, etc.

If Sampras had 2 more slams to be tied with Federer it wouldnt make much difference in how people view the other top players of that era. There were alot of actually great players of that era besides Sampras and Agassi. There are none in the last almost decade outside of Federer and Nadal.

This is the problem with your argument. Nadal is a dominant #2, during Sampras' era, there was no dominant #2. There may have been a bunch of tradings for 2nd best and a more winning rest of the field, but there was no one like Nadal...Agassi wasn't even close. (btw, "old" Agassi was younger in tennis years, because of all those years he spent screwing off).

You are basing your analysis of this almost solely on slams, record, etc. Well, by that analysis, you can't say any given era is stronger than any other. It all adds up to the same thing -- 4 slams are won every year, etc. There is no inherent reason why a very homogeneous distribution of slam-winners indicates a stronger era than a very non-homogeneous distribution of slams.

 

[gold soundz]

Sorry but guys like Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, and Nalbandian would never be in the same league of ability as guys like Agassi, Becker, or Courier. The secondary threats from 1992-1996 were on atleast on with the best guys outside of Federer from 2002-2006. Davydenko is a poor mans Kafelnikov yet occupies a higher place in the game consistently today than Kafelnikov could back then (despite winning 0 slams to Kafelnikov's 2). A very old Agassi had very good head to heads with Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, Ferrero, and Nalbandian in their primes. An 34 and 35 year old Agassi was Federer's toughest opponent before Nadal emerged. Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Djokovic, or Murray would not be overly great champions who would win a whole bunch of slams in any era. There is nothing that would convince me those players are in the same league as the top players of the early and mid 90s.



If Sampras had 2 more slams to be tied with Federer it wouldnt make much difference in how people view the other top players of that era. There were alot of actually great players of that era besides Sampras and Agassi. There are none in the last almost decade outside of Federer and Nadal.



I did not say say anyone who says Federer is greater than Sampras is a *******. However this forum is full of *******s who attack and insult anyone who suggest their hero is not head and shoulders above Sampras or even the undisputed GOAT.

There are, it's just that Federer stood out because he's the GOAT and Nadal stood out too because clearly he's an insanely good player.

 

[dh003i]

I can't see him winning another French.

What, you just felt the need to insert a pointless knock on Federer? Aside from the fact that it is possible -- whether you can "see" it or not -- that wasn't the point. My point was this: Federer would rather have 17 slams and 2 FO than 16 slams, 1 FO, and the 23 straight SF record. He hasn't said this, but it seems obvious.

 

[gold soundz]

What, you just felt the need to insert a pointless knock on Federer? Aside from the fact that it is possible -- whether you can "see" it or not -- that wasn't the point. My point was this: Federer would rather have 17 slams and 2 FO than 16 slams, 1 FO, and the 23 straight SF record. He hasn't said this, but it seems obvious.

Yeah I agree with you point, I thought I'd just throw that in though.

 

[davey25]

If you wanted to give a better answer, you'd ave to really analyze the game of those players in detail: movement, serve, forehand, backhand, court positioning, volleys, mental game, etc.

And if you actually tried to compare Roddick or Hewitt to Becker, Agassi, or even Courier this way they would come out looking even more inferior than they do based on career achievements. Heck Roddick looks horrible compared to Ivanisevic in a game aspect by aspect breakdown, and Ivanisevic is a guy who arguably accomplished less back then.

 

[dh003i]

And if you actually tried to compare Roddick or Hewitt to Becker, Agassi, or even Courier this way they would come out looking even more inferior than they do based on career achievements. Heck Roddick looks horrible compared to Ivanisevic in a game aspect by aspect breakdown, and Ivanisevic is a guy who arguably accomplished less back then.

Maybe...but maybe part of the reason is because the game is faster now, he has better opponents, etc? It is very difficult to isolate the way you're doing. But I think Roddick has better groundstrokes than Ivanisevic.

 

[powerangle]

Sorry but guys like Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, and Nalbandian would never be in the same league of ability as guys like Agassi, Becker, or Courier. The secondary threats from 1992-1996 were on atleast on with the best guys outside of Federer from 2002-2006. Davydenko is a poor mans Kafelnikov yet occupies a higher place in the game consistently today than Kafelnikov could back then (despite winning 0 slams to Kafelnikov's 2). A very old Agassi had very good head to heads with Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, Ferrero, and Nalbandian in their primes. An 34 and 35 year old Agassi was Federer's toughest opponent before Nadal emerged. Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Djokovic, or Murray would not be overly great champions who would win a whole bunch of slams in any era. There is nothing that would convince me those players are in the same league as the top players of the early and mid 90s.




If Sampras had 2 more slams to be tied with Federer it wouldnt make much difference in how people view the other top players of that era. There were alot of actually great players of that era besides Sampras and Agassi. There are none in the last almost decade outside of Federer and Nadal.



I did not say say anyone who says Federer is greater than Sampras is a *******. However this forum is full of *******s who attack and insult anyone who suggest their hero is not head and shoulders above Sampras or even the undisputed GOAT.

You do realize that Nalbandian is often touted as one of the most talented players ever to not win a slam right? And Safin? Really?

 

[davey25]

You do realize that Nalbandian is often touted as one of the most talented players ever to not win a slam right? And Safin? Really?

How good a player Safin is or isnt is based on his overall level of performance and achievement throughout his career, not his mythical "peak level" which he produced 2 or 3 times in his career. And based on that he is probably not even as good a player as Hewitt and Roddick, especialy Hewitt who has clearly achieved more in his career than Safin has despite being virtually the same age and playing the exact same field. Do you really think an injury prone mental flake who had about 4 good years on tour, who blew 1 of his only 4 slam finals to Tomas Johansson, and who supposably plays his best tennis only 1 or 2 times a year, would actually do well overall against Sampras, Becker, Courier, Agassi, or Edberg in their primes?

And yes I am aware Nalbandian is probably the most overrated player on TW. Many consider Todd Martin one of the best players to not win a slam too, the difference is he was much further down the pecking order in the Sampras era than Nalbandin is during the Federer era.

 

[piece]

If Sampras had 2 more slams to be tied with Federer it wouldnt make much difference in how people view the other top players of that era. There were alot of actually great players of that era besides Sampras and Agassi. There are none in the last almost decade outside of Federer and Nadal.
.

Not a good comparison. The relevant hypothetical is if Sampras had won two more slams to be tied with Federer within a period of approximately 6 years (as opposed to the 12 years it took Sampras to rack up his slams) would it make much difference to how people view the other top players of that era. In which case my answer is yes, it would, as there just aren't enough slams leftover to make other players great - and this effect is amplified in Federer's era due to the presense of the most dominant clay courter of all time (which just so happens to be the only surface free from Federer's dominance).

In this hypothetical scenario Sampras's era would be decimated by a lack of available slams to win (and players like Edberg and weren't big competition in slams for Sampras for the majority of his career anyway - they were past their peak, with the majority of their slam wins coming years before sampras's dominance started.)

 

[davey25]

Not a good comparison. The relevant hypothetical is if Sampras had won two more slams to be tied with Federer within a period of approximately 6 years (as opposed to the 12 years it took Sampras to rack up his slams) would it make much difference to how people view the other top players of that era. In which case my answer is yes, it would, as there just aren't enough slams leftover to make other players great - and this effect is amplified in Federer's era due to the presense of one the most dominant clay courter of all time (which just so happens to be the only surface free from Federer's dominance)

No it still wouldnt make much difference. Main rivals of Sampras like Becker, Courier, and Agassi won the majority of their slams before or after the main Sampras reign. So Sampras being more dominant and winning more slams during a 6 year period still wouldnt affect their totals much or at all. Hewitt, Safin, and Ferrero imparticular had chances to win more slams before Federer took over in 2004. All those guys first became major contenders in 2000 or 2001. Yet they failed to do so, instead allowing an aged Agassi, Johansson, an aging Costa, a wild card Ivanisevic, and a retiring Sampras to win almost all the slams. And that whole group were all easily overtaken for the #2 by Nadal when Nadal was still only 19 and mostly a clay court specialist at that point.

Anyway anyone who would even argue Hewitt, Roddick, Safin (his consistent average level as a player, not his wasted potential level), Nalbandian are even arguably as good of tennis players as Becker, Agassi, or even Courier from a simple logistics standpoint or even having watched those guys play, are pretty much out to sea anyway.

 

[piece]

No it still wouldnt make much difference. Main rivals of Sampras like Becker, Courier, and Agassi won the majority of their slams before or after the main Sampras reign. So Sampras being more dominant and winning more slams during a 6 year period still wouldnt affect their totals much or at all. Hewitt, Safin, and Ferrero imparticular had chances to win more slams before Federer took over in 2004. All those guys first became major contenders in 2000 or 2001. Yet they failed to do so, instead allowing an aged Agassi, Johansson, an aging Costa, a wild card Ivanisevic, and a retiring Sampras to win almost all the slams. And that whole group were all easily overtaken for the #2 by Nadal when Nadal was still only 19 and mostly a clay court specialist at that point.

Anyway anyone who would even argue Hewitt, Roddick, Safin (his consistent average level as a player, not his wasted potential level), Nalbandian are even arguably as good of tennis players as Becker, Agassi, or even Courier from a simple logistics standpoint or even having watched those guys play, are pretty much out to sea anyway.

Who are you to say that Federer's rivals won't win slams in the next few years that put them on a similar standing to someone like courier?

Federer has Hewitt Safin and Roddick as well as Nadal (who will probably be greater than any sampras rival), and potential multi-slam winners djokovic, delpo and murray. Even if these players win their extra slams outside Federer's reign those slams will still count towards their greatness as his rivals, in much the same way as you admitted sampras's rivals' slams counts did.

Also, Agassi was a rival of both players and his facing federer in many big matches in such a short space of time (tmc final, 2 gs quarter finals and a gs final all within 2 year) displayed a level of consistency he didn't often show during Sampras's reign. So even though he was a bigger rival of sampras, he can be considered one of Federer's great rivals.

It seems to me that Federer's competition is likely to become greater by your standards than Sampras's was.

 

[davey25]

Who are you to say that Federer's rivals won't win slams in the next few years that put them on a similar standing to someone like courier?

Federer has Hewitt Safin and Roddick as well as Nadal (who will probably be greater than any sampras rival), and potential multi-slam winners djokovic, delpo and murray. Even if these players win their extra slams outside Federer's reign those slams will still count towards their greatness as his rivals, in much the same way as you admitted sampras's rivals' slams counts did.

Also, Agassi was a rival of both players and his facing federer in many big matches in such a short space of time (tmc final, 2 gs quarter finals and a gs final all within 2 year) displayed a level of consistency he didn't often show during Sampras's reign. So even though he was a bigger rival of sampras, he can be considered one of Federer's great rivals.

It seems to me that Federer's competition is likely to become greater by your standards than Sampras's was.

I dont know what makes you think the future holds alot of promise for this group of both older and younger Federer rivals. Djokovic already looks like he has peaked at the ripe old age of 22. He hasnt improved in atleast over a year now. The same is looking increasingly true of Murray and he hasnt even achieved what Djokovic has in the game up to now. Del Potro cant seem to stay healthy to save his life and hasnt even won a Masters title yet. You cant say Federer alone is stopping the group, more often they cant even get past Haas, Kohlschreiber, Verdasco, Berdych, Melzer, and others. Roddick's window to win another slam will close very soon so he had better do it now if he is ever going to. Nalbandian's has already closed. And Hewitt's window to win another slam was closed many years ago. If the group ever attains the success that would put them even on par with the Sampras generation elite I will be floored with amazement.

And on no planet can Agassi be viewed as a Federer contemporary in the true sense of the word. There is an 11 year age differene between the two. Agassi and Sampras are virtually the same age and grew up playing each other for years throughout their physical primes. Do you view Lendl and McEnroe as Sampras contemporaries.

 

[TennisandMusic]

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)

No, he didn't even get close. He got to 4. He would have had to reach 7 to break the record. He did not finish 2008 year end number 1, and he might not even do 2010. That would mean 5 years total as year end number 1, Sampras had 6 consecutive years in a row. I'm not sure you understood what was being said.

 

[BorisBeckerFan]

No, he didn't even get close. He got to 4. He would have had to reach 7 to break the record. He did not finish 2008 year end number 1, and he might not even do 2010. That would mean 5 years total as year end number 1, Sampras had 6 consecutive years in a row. I'm not sure you understood what was being said.

Agreed, for starters a 12 month period is not the same as a year end or end of a tennis season.

 

[piece]

No, he didn't even get close. He got to 4. He would have had to reach 7 to break the record. He did not finish 2008 year end number 1, and he might not even do 2010. That would mean 5 years total as year end number 1, Sampras had 6 consecutive years in a row. I'm not sure you understood what was being said.

Haha.

Read my post again.

Here's the definition of a year for you:
A year (from Old English ȝēr) is the orbital period of the Earth moving around the Sun. For an observer on Earth, this corresponds to the period it takes the Sun to complete one course throughout the zodiac along the ecliptic.

In astronomy, the Julian year is a unit of time, defined as 365.25 days of 86,400 SI seconds each

*note it is not defined as the period from 1st Jan to 31 Dec

 

[piece]

Agreed, for starters a 12 month period is not the same as a year end or end of a tennis season.

Incorrect. Although if you'd said it wasn't the same as a calendar year, you'd be right.

What is the relevant difference between being calendar year end number 1 and being number 1 at the end of some other 52 week period?

 

[BorisBeckerFan]

Haha.

Read my post again.

Here's the definition of a year for you:
A year (from Old English ȝēr) is the orbital period of the Earth moving around the Sun. For an observer on Earth, this corresponds to the period it takes the Sun to complete one course throughout the zodiac along the ecliptic.

In astronomy, the Julian year is a unit of time, defined as 365.25 days of 86,400 SI seconds each

*note it is not defined as the period from 1st Jan to 31 Dec

I totaly understand what you are saying, but I think you are missing the point. It's not that what you are saying doesn't make sense (it odes), but that the year end record is based on one tennis season. If you win Wimbledon and US Open in 2011 and then go on to win the AO and FO in 2012 it's not a Calendar Year Grand Slam because it was spread over 2 seasons even though it's within 365 days. Same goes with ending the year at number one.

 

[piece]

I dont know what makes you think the future holds alot of promise for this group of both older and younger Federer rivals. Djokovic already looks like he has peaked at the ripe old age of 22. He hasnt improved in atleast over a year now. The same is looking increasingly true of Murray and he hasnt even achieved what Djokovic has in the game up to now. Del Potro cant seem to stay healthy to save his life and hasnt even won a Masters title yet. You cant say Federer alone is stopping the group, more often they cant even get past Haas, Kohlschreiber, Verdasco, Berdych, Melzer, and others. Roddick's window to win another slam will close very soon so he had better do it now if he is ever going to. Nalbandian's has already closed. And Hewitt's window to win another slam was closed many years ago. If the group ever attains the success that would put them even on par with the Sampras generation elite I will be floored with amazement.

And on no planet can Agassi be viewed as a Federer contemporary in the true sense of the word. There is an 11 year age differene between the two. Agassi and Sampras are virtually the same age and grew up playing each other for years throughout their physical primes. Do you view Lendl and McEnroe as Sampras contemporaries.

People have slumps. Agassi dropped way down the ranking during his career but it would have been incorrect to write him off - though he had already proven himself. Djoko is no. 3 and could become no. 2 at wimbledon, del potro is injured at the moment and murray has made 1/2 of the slam finals played this year. It's ridiculous to expect them to have poor careers and not win any further slams.

And yes, agassi was a prominent rival of Federer for Federer's first 3 big years on tour (03-05). I didn't say he was a contemporary, but he was a rival for that period, regardless of the age difference.

Even without Agassi as a rival, I can see the other players I've mentioned racking up a few slams each, in which case Sampras's era may start to look slightly weaker than Federer's (at this point in time I think they're fairly even - or at least there's no important differences in their abilities and performances)

 

[piece]

I totaly understand what you are saying, but I think you are missing the point. It's not that what you are saying doesn't make sense (it odes), but that the year end record is based on one tennis season. If you win Wimbledon and US Open in 2011 and then go on to win the AO and FO in 2012 it's not a Calendar Year Grand Slam because it was spread over 2 seasons even though it's within 365 days. Same goes with ending the year at number one.

Yes I understand that, but I don't consider winning four slams in a row, but not within one calendar year, to be any less of an achievement than winning them in one calendar year. Do you?

And the difference (to my mind) is even less relevant when considering the number 1 ranking, since the rankings are based on the last 52 weeks (which is a year), so the no1. ranking is, at any point in time, determined by the tennis played in the last 52 weeks. It includes all the same tournaments as any other 52 week period (so is still based on the tennis season in that sense) but they'll just be in a different order in terms of chronological distance from the present date. I don't consider this a relevant difference at all in determining the worth of a record. Although the difference certainly makes one record (Pete's) easier to sport than the other (Roger's).

 

[BorisBeckerFan]

As another example, it would be like saying Becker was a year end number one when he wasn't. His number one ranking was based on the previous 365 days but he wasn't able to finish a season ranked number one.

 

[piece]

As another example, it would be like saying Becker was a year end number one when he wasn't. His number one ranking was based on the previous 365 days but he wasn't able to finish a season ranked number one.

If you read my posts carefully, you'll see I never claimed Federer was the year end number 1 for 6 years in a row or finished the season number 1 for 6 seasons in a row. I said he has been no. 1 at the end of the same 12 month period for 6 of those periods in a row (or words to that effect). In saying this, I was trying to show that he has equalled Sampras's record in it's important respect, and the only difference remaining is one that is irrelevant in determining the greatness of the achievement.

 

[BorisBeckerFan]

Yes I understand that, but I don't consider winning four slams in a row, but not within one calendar year, to be any less of an achievement than winning them in one calendar year. Do you?

And the difference (to my mind) is even less relevant when considering the number 1 ranking, since the rankings are based on the last 52 weeks (which is a year), so the no1. ranking is, at any point in time, determined by the tennis played in the last 52 weeks. It includes all the same tournaments as any other 52 week period (so is still based on the tennis season in that sense) but they'll just be in a different order in terms of chronological distance from the present date. I don't consider this a relevant difference at all in determining the worth of a record. Although the difference certainly makes one record (Pete's) easier to sport than the other (Roger's).

Let's say a basketball team manages to get 37 wins at the ending half of one season and 36 wins at the begining half of another season. I don't know any one who would equate this to breaking the Bulls record of a 72 win season. I am not denying your point. Your point makes perfect sense. It's just not in line I think with what was being discussed in terms of Fed matching or beating Sampras's record.