Remove this Banner Ad

Interesting federer V Sampras stats.

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

G

gaelictiogar

Norm Smith Medallist
Veteran
Apr 23, 2006
8,474
3,627
east melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Grand slam semis and finals plus masters series finals and masters cup finals are the games which define a player's standing in big time competition. How do you rate when the pressure in on in big finals? how do you handle Slam semis with the big game as a prize?

Sampras played 23 Slam semis winning 18, 18 slam finals winning 14, 6 Masters cup finals winning 5 and 19 masters series finals winning 11. A total of 48 wins in 66 high pressure big match situations at a winning average of 73%.

Federer has played 13 slam semis winning 11, 11 slam finals winning 10, 4 Masters Cup finals winning 3 and 16 masters series finals winning 12. a total of 36 wins in 44 high pressure big match situations at a winning average of 82%.

The number of Slams is so well known that people think Fed needs 14 to be equal to Sampras as a player but as these figures show he is at 25 years old already significantly better - 82% to 73% - at winning when the big match chips are down and is only one win off equalling Sampras masters series/masters cup total of 16 wins. He is without doubt the greatest open era player.
 
Would be easier to compare tabulated:
Code: 
[B]          Grand Slam   Masters Cup  Masters Series
         Semis  Final     Final         Final[/B]
Sampras  18/23  14/18      5/6          11/19
Federer  11/13  10/11      3/4          12/16
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Bottom line is, barring a major injury, Federer is going to smash Sampras' GS total record and will probably get up to around 18-20. Add to the fact he is already a more accomplished clay court player and to me it's fairly clear cut. This coming from someone who idolised Pistol Pete as well.
 
It'd be interesting to compare the two of them at the same age. What had Sampras done at 25?

To be honest, though, I think that Pistol Pete is already out of the equation. At the moment it's Federer vs Laver. Hard to judge fairly because Laver had five years out of Grand Slam tennis before the Open Era let him back in. I suspect that if he'd played the Slams between '63 and '67 he'd be closer to 20 than 11 Slams. Maybe even more.

Then again, Federer apparently intends to play until 2012. 20 is within reach.
 
As greater Champion as Laver was, tennis was really very different back then and is now open to many more players from different countries. I could be wrong with that observation but you would need information on players at that time.
 
likka said:
Would it be fair to say the depth of men's tennis is greater now as opposed to Sampras reign?
Click to expand...

You cannot be serious.Have a look at top 20 now and compare it to 1995. You will see there are NO grand slam winners in the top 20 other than Federer, Nadal and Roddick.Here are the ATP 1995 year end rankings

1. Pete Sampras

2. Andre Agassi

3. Thomas Muster

4. Boris Becker

5. Michael Chang

6. Yevgeny Kafelnikov

7. Thomas Enqvist

8. Jim Courier

9. Wayne Ferreira

10.Goran Ivanisevic

11. Richard Krajicek

12. Michael Stich

13.Sergi Bruguera

14.Arnaud Boetsch

15. Marc Rosset

16.Andreï Medvedev

17.Magnus Larsson

18. Todd Martin

19.Stefan Edberg

20. Albert Costa.



Anyone with any knowledge of tennis would admit that lot is >>>>>>>> daylight >>>>> present lot. Take out Roddick, Federer, Nadal and all you have are mediocre players who wouldnt be in the top 10 in the above list.
 
TP its impossible to compare generations like that. Perhaps if Fed wasn't there the slams would have been shared by half a dozen others and we would be talking of Roddick, Nalbandian, Gonzo, Nadal and co. as a great generation so competitive with each other and saying Sampras only won so many because the opposition was poor.

All a man can do in any sport is totally dominate his age as Fed is doing. I mean look at golf. Are Els, Goosen etc as good as Player, Palmer etc? maybe and maybe not but Woods dominates them even more than nicklaus did his generation and that is why most commentators now accept Woods is the all time best. same with fed In a sport with more money and more nations really competing than ever before he is totally dominant thousands of ranking points ahead of everyone else. He is the best ever.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

gaelictiogar said:
TP its impossible to compare generations like that. Perhaps if Fed wasn't there the slams would have been shared by half a dozen others and we would be talking of Roddick, Nalbandian, Gonzo, Nadal and co. as a great generation so competitive with each other and saying Sampras only won so many because the opposition was poor.

All a man can do in any sport is totally dominate his age as Fed is doing. I mean look at golf. Are Els, Goosen etc as good as Player, Palmer etc? maybe and maybe not but Woods dominates them even more than nicklaus did his generation and that is why most commentators now accept Woods is the all time best. same with fed In a sport with more money and more nations really competing than ever before he is totally dominant thousands of ranking points ahead of everyone else. He is the best ever.
Click to expand...

When you say you cannot compare generations, i cannot agree more. I have been saying all along, stop making silly threads like sampras vs federer etc etc, cause its impossible to compare them. Bring back 1995 wimbledon surface with those ruthless serve and volleyers ganging up on your throat on every point...now that is variety.You do not see that now. So how do you compare them?? saying "best ever" is again a bit premature.I rate Lavers 12 slams >>>> Sampras 14 slams.It depends on opinions and perception.I am not going to start a federer vs sampras debate, but why dont we let federer win 15 slams first before making a comment? Tennis back then was so different.At wimbledon, it was a baseliners graveyard, even guys like Agassi found it difficult to win matches against serve and volley players.You cannot compare the present wimbledon surface with the vintage one.I am really dissappointed at ATP/ITF for killing off serve and volley tennis, however i rate the 1980's and 90's lot in tennis as the best lot ever

But my point above was different.Look at the number of GS winners in the top 20 list.Look at the variety (baseliners and serve and volleyes).Also look at the big servers in the top 20 and those giant killers.Compare it to the present generation and tell me which lot is more dangerous?
 
One cannot compare generations but one can compare aspects of play when the toos are there to do so. in this thread I'm showing that Fed with an 82% conversion rate in selected big match situations is superior at converting such situations than Sampras with 72%. No more no less.

Why not wait til he has 15? Because number of Slams won in not the only measure. Federer already has more masters series titles than Pete. Does that have no bearing? His SR or conversion rate is already superior to Pete's during his mid 90's heyday. Does that compare?

I mean look at Emerson's 12. That is not superior to say borg's 11. Emerson won 6 Aussie opens when it was a slam in name only and the top players ignored it. Fact is places like Rome adn Miami get stronger fields today than melbourne did pre 1980s. Should we wait til Fed has 13 before regarding him as better?
 
Total Power said:
Anyone with any knowledge of tennis would admit that lot is >>>>>>>> daylight >>>>> present lot. Take out Roddick, Federer, Nadal and all you have are mediocre players who wouldnt be in the top 10 in the above list.
Click to expand...

Actually it was Jim Courier who stated the depth of tennis now was far greater than when he played.

He said the consistency in the quality of tennis played was far greater... or words to that effect.

I think he has a fair knowledge of tennis :thumbsu:.
 
gaelictiogar said:
One cannot compare generations but one can compare aspects of play when the toos are there to do so. in this thread I'm showing that Fed with an 82% conversion rate in selected big match situations is superior at converting such situations than Sampras with 72%. No more no less.

Why not wait til he has 15? Because number of Slams won in not the only measure. Federer already has more masters series titles than Pete. Does that have no bearing? His SR or conversion rate is already superior to Pete's during his mid 90's heyday. Does that compare?

I mean look at Emerson's 12. That is not superior to say borg's 11. Emerson won 6 Aussie opens when it was a slam in name only and the top players ignored it. Fact is places like Rome adn Miami get stronger fields today than melbourne did pre 1980s. Should we wait til Fed has 13 before regarding him as better?
Click to expand...


Again GT, its a matter of opinions.You have ignored my comment about the depth in the mens tennis in the 1995 rankings.I mean have a look at it, how many multiple GS winners do you see? how can ever consistent giant killers do you see? certainly you will agree that playing Becker in the finals is way more difficult than playing Gonzalez in the finals? try playing a big guy like Ivananisevic or Krajicek in the fast wimbledon surface....its not the same like playing a Spaniard on grass and have an easy cakewalk.Its disgraceful that tennis has to come down to this. Where is variety in today's tennis? where are big servers and volleyers in today's tennis? if you scan the top 20 you will see everyone of them are similar type of players.

I am not taking away any of Federer's achievement but being a tennis fan GT, you MUST look beyond numbers.
 
likka said:
Actually it was Jim Courier who stated the depth of tennis now was far greater than when he played.

He said the consistency in the quality of tennis played was far greater... or words to that effect.

I think he has a fair knowledge of tennis :thumbsu:.
Click to expand...

Mate, commentators bark a lot of things.You must remember that they are responsible for promoting the game as well.So what was he supposed to say? "today's tennis is so crap that i hate commentating"? he will be fired right away.But if you know tennis and if you are following tennis for a while, trying judging yourself. The top 20 presented above vs the present top 20 :thumbsu:
 
I do take your point about the decline of serve and volley TP but something had to be done about the fact that most of the public were bored mindless by brute force and power dominating the most prestigious competition.

It would be OK were Wimbledon not the unofficial world championship which it is. If it were a normal slam it would be OK but when the world focusses on the game it is at Wimbledon more than anywhere else and people want to see artists like McEnroe, Leconte and Federer rather than grunt and power like Phillipoussis, Ivanisevic etc. I know that is an arguable personal opinion but I think its widely held.

Federer may not have dominated Wimbledon 15 years ago but equally Sampras who had to me a mind numbing one dimensional power game and was an inferior all round player to Agassi would not dominate on the surface as it now is. Swings and roundabouts in comparing players.

Yes there may be a place for a top tournament favouring power merchants but not the unofficial world championships when tennis is in the shop window.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Total Power said:
Mate, commentators bark a lot of things.You must remember that they are responsible for promoting the game as well.So what was he supposed to say? "today's tennis is so crap that i hate commentating"? he will be fired right away.But if you know tennis and if you are following tennis for a while, trying judging yourself. The top 20 presented above vs the present top 20 :thumbsu:
Click to expand...

I agree with him.

Quality of men's tennis is much higher than 10 years ago.

He was commenting in relation to Federer's achievements last year and comparing to his and Sampras' era.

But of course you would know better than a former world #1 from that era :rolleyes:.
 
likka said:
I agree with him.

Quality of men's tennis is much higher than 10 years ago.

He was commenting in relation to Federer's achievements last year and comparing to his and Sampras' era.

But of course you would know better than a former world #1 from that era :rolleyes:.
Click to expand...

The truth is the quality and strenght in depth is almost certainly greater now. The top 20 are drawn from a greater variety of nations and the money is bigger so the sport in more attractive.

For those reasons it simply makes sense to suppose a greater number of top athletes are competing for places on tour as is the case with golf as well. tennis used to be france and UK then it was Aus and USA, Now its recruiting from latin America, east Europe and Asia as well.
 
Thewlis Dish said:
Bottom line is, barring a major injury, Federer is going to smash Sampras' GS total record and will probably get up to around 18-20. Add to the fact he is already a more accomplished clay court player and to me it's fairly clear cut. This coming from someone who idolised Pistol Pete as well.
Click to expand...
Pistol Pete > Ray Allen?
 
likka said:
I agree with him.

Quality of men's tennis is much higher than 10 years ago.

He was commenting in relation to Federer's achievements last year and comparing to his and Sampras' era.

But of course you would know better than a former world #1 from that era :rolleyes:.
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure you have never disagreed with Robert Walls or Steve Silviagni or Chris McDermott etc etc :rolleyes:

If by depth you mean players outside the US and Australia dominating , then i agree with him.However its ridiculous to suggest that the level of tennis is higher now that what it used to be.
 
gaelictiogar said:
I do take your point about the decline of serve and volley TP but something had to be done about the fact that most of the public were bored mindless by brute force and power dominating the most prestigious competition.

It would be OK were Wimbledon not the unofficial world championship which it is. If it were a normal slam it would be OK but when the world focusses on the game it is at Wimbledon more than anywhere else and people want to see artists like McEnroe, Leconte and Federer rather than grunt and power like Phillipoussis, Ivanisevic etc. I know that is an arguable personal opinion but I think its widely held.

Federer may not have dominated Wimbledon 15 years ago but equally Sampras who had to me a mind numbing one dimensional power game and was an inferior all round player to Agassi would not dominate on the surface as it now is. Swings and roundabouts in comparing players.
Yes there may be a place for a top tournament favouring power merchants but not the unofficial world championships when tennis is in the shop window.
Click to expand...

That exactly is my point.Sampras was unbeatable at wimbledon in the 1990's but if he played now, he will be extremely vulnerable.The wimbledon surface back then was NOT suited to baseline tennis, even the likes of federer would struggle there.He might have won once or twice but he would NOT dominate on that surface.

I agree wimbledon is the official world championships of tennis, however i liked the concept of grand slam cup, where the 4 grand slam performances were given a weighted average and rankings were decided in that manner.

Another point i'd like to mention GT, the racquets these players using how are high tension graphite racquets, suited to power tennis (baseline stuff). With the racquet technology of the early 1990's can anyone hit those winners federer does at the moment? An example of the graphite 7.3 techonology that Federer using at the moment.(String tension 60 lbs). Now back in 1990's you need a string tension of ATLEAST 70 lbs to hit the ball with similar power and anyone who knows anything about tennis would agree that 70 lbs would kill your shoulder in a months time. GT, from what i know from previous discussions, you know a fair bit about the game of tennis unlike the other losers here, do you realistically think federer would dominate the 1990's era given all the points mentioned above?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Interesting federer V Sampras stats.

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top