Read the debate intro and Loyal Homer’s argument that Roger Federer is better than Pete Sampras.
Stats are misleading. In fact, that’s the reason why, in my Sports Geek bio, I make it abundantly clear that I am a Sports Geek, not just a stats geek. There is a monumental difference. Comparing the careers of tennis legends Pete Sampras and Roger Federer are a prime example of why stats aren’t all they’re cracked up to be. As the great Yogi Berra said, “There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.”
Sure, Roger Federer just won his 15th Grand Slam tennis title. This is an amazing, monumental achievement (which has berthed some really great future topic ideas, folks). Federer is dominant, routinely making finals as Loyal Homer points out. But, the competition faced by Pete Sampras during the peak of men’s tennis in the 1990s is nothing like the competition faced by Roger Federer now. Federer has one decent opponent, Rafael Nadal.
Nadal is a good player in his own right, and has outplayed Federer in head-to-head matches winning nine of fifteen and five of the last six. That is impressive from Nadal. But, when comparing eras, the opponents Pete Sampras faced on a tournament-to-tournament basis were much tougher than the occasional Federer-Nadal match. Nadal provides Federer’s only true rival, and beats him more than he loses. Sampras faced legends and won.
Legends like Andre Agassi (winner of eight Grand Slam titles). Agassi was ranked #1 in the world for 101 days before Sampras reclaimed the title. As great of a player as Agassi was, Sampras beat him 20 out of 34 times. Jim Courier was another Sampras contemporary and a clay court legend winning two French Opens. Courier held the #1 ranking, as well, for 58 weeks. But, of the 20 times they played, Sampras won 16. Another rival of Sampras’ was Stefan Edberg. He held the #1 rank for 72 straight weeks and won six Grand Slams. Sampras beat him eight of fourteen match ups. Boris Becker (six Grand Slams, Sampras wins 12 of 19 match ups) and Ivan Lendl (eight grand slams, Sampras wins five of eight match ups) are two other greats Sampras beat.
Despite all of that extremely good competition, Sampras still manages to hold the record for most consecutive weeks ranked #1 at 286 weeks.
For argument’s sake, let’s review some statistics. It’s important to make sure this comparison is apples-to-apples… well, as much as possible. Federer has already played in 40 Grand Slams, while Sampras, for a variety of reasons (injuries, mostly), played in only 38 Grand Slams for his entire career. Through 38 Grand Slams Federer had 12 wins to Sampras’ 11 – not that much of a difference, certainly not enough to anoint Federer the King of Tennis.
We must also consider how Sampras and Federer have distinctly different styles, and those differences play into their respective records. Federer’s style highlights his versatility and instinct while Sampras’ style emphasized his power and instinct. This is important because it explains the types of tournaments each player entered. Sampras was not as successful on clay because it neutralizes power. Grass and carpet surfaces favor Sampras’ explosive, powerful serves and forehand. Therefore he entered in – and won – many tournaments on each with seven grass court tournament wins and a whopping 15 tournament wins on carpet. Federer has only two, and has not dominated any one surface like Sampras did.
But, the most important point is that Sampras played some of the best players of ANY era in tennis, and still managed to dominate the competition.
Federer is a great player, but he’ll never match the intensity of the rivalries Sampras faced on a tournament-to-tournament basis. Sampras was always playing against great players in a sport that was peaking, in its prime. Federer’s competitive field is not nearly as rich. It’s true Federer may end up with more Grand Slam titles, but he will not end up with the designation of the Undisputed Greatest Tennis Player of All Time.
You know, it makes me sick to hear people say that Federer’s record is tarnished because Nadal did not play. So what? Injuries happen. Steffi Graf would have won about a third of her Grand Slams if Monica Seles was not injured, as Seles was killing Graf on all surfaces when Seles was stabbed. So what? Yes, Sampras had to play against Agassi, but for most of Agassi’s career he was unmotivated or did not show up, as in most Wimbledons because he did to want to wear white. For this, Sampras was only 20-14 against Agassi. Nadal is NEVER unmotivated. Sampras played plenty of mediocre people in Grand Slam finals, like Cedric Pioline in the US Open, or Todd Martin and Carlos Moya at the Australian. On the other hand, Federer played and beat in Grand Slams Sampras, Agassi, Hewitt, Nadal, Djokovic, Safin, Ferrero, Roddick, Kuerten (at the French), Chang, and Safin, all of whom won Grand Slams and some who were number one. In other matches he had to play Slam champions Moya, Rafter and Kafelnikov. Sampras only got to the Semifinals of the French ONCE, and never had to play the greatest of all time at any surface, like Nadal is with clay. The following immortals have a lifetime winning record against Sampras, and NONE OF THEM is better than Nadal and some are not better than Olivier Rochas: Cristo Van Rensburg, Max Mirnyi, Paul Haarhuis, Richard Krajicek, Sergi Brugera, Michael Stich, and the unforgettable Derrick Rostagno. There is always “what if”, but if I could fly I’d be in Switzerland right now. However, I can’t.
Hi Michael, thanks for the comment. To clarify, I’m not saying Federer’s record is tarnished because Nadal didn’t play. In fact, I’m complimenting Nadal on being an outstanding player, the only one of his era that can hold a candle to Federer AND the only person with a winning record against him.
What about Sampras playing through a stomach virus and STILL winning a Grand Slam? The way you write, it’s as if Sampras was a second class player who got lucky, not the most dominant player of an era filled with outstanding players. I also think the stage of career that Federer played Sampras (one time at the end of Sampras’ career… and they still went to 5 sets), Agassi, Hewitt… these guys were all on the downhill side… and rolling pretty fast. The other players you mentioned that Federer has beaten are not the same caliber of player that Sampras faced. Perhaps when Federer’s career is complete and we’re looking back Federer’s contemporaries will show better, but right now they don’t provide much competition.
Michael…thanks for taking me down memory lane with names such as Todd Martin and Yevgeny Kafelnikov. And thanks for proving my point better than I could!
BTW…Agassi is my favorite player of all time. For whatever reason, I always liked him better than Pete. If Andre hadn’t gone into the tank for those years, he might had been right there with Pete. And, for whatever reason, I always got the feeling the American public loved Agassi more than they did Sampras. Nothing at all against Pete. That’s just the way I felt as I was following both of them growing up.
Although this is primarily a debate about Federer and Sampras, where there is discussion about the greatest male tennis players of all-time, Rod Laver certainly deserves a mention.
For those of us that have grown-up watching Borg, Lendl, Agassi, Sampras, and Federer, Laver’s career accomplishments, which include 11 Grand Slam titles and twice winning all four Grand Slam singles titles in the same year, are all-too-often overlooked.
GREAT point. I think you’ve mentioned a debate for another time, but I agree that he certainly has to be in the consideration set. He was the real deal, though the quality of his competition may also be called into question.
For those unfamiliar, click here.
plstcosr61,
I agree his accomplishments are overlooked. In fact, I know very little about him except the basics. I do know that the main court where the Australian Open is played is called Rod Laver Arena
15 (and counting) to 14 (retired)….that’s all we need to know!
In my view it is Federer quite comfortably ahead of Sampras. Federer’s consistency in tournaments means no-one else (except Nadal) has a good record at all. Since 2004 in 23 grand slams, Federer has 14 wins, 5 finals, 3 SFs and one “fail”. In Sampras’s six best years (1993-1998 when he was #1 in 24 slams), he had 10 wins, 1 final, 3 SFs and 10 “fails” (quite often against relative nobodies). Sampras gave lots of chances for the likes of Courier, Edberg, Agassi and co to shine. Sampras was a superb fast-court player but surely true excellence in tennis extends to the slower courts as well. In his era, Federer is without peer on the fast courts and has beaten all bar one super clay-courter on the slower courts.
So is it more a question of the era’s in which these two players played?
To me, the question really seems to boil down to the following point:
When you compare the Roger Federer era to the Pete Sampras era, is Roger Federer that much more dominant, or is the respective pool of competition that much weaker?
Mark, in your view is it that Sampras gave in to lesser players, not great players taking the #1 from him?
To me, the 1990s was one of the peak periods in tennis, full of great players and champions. Very competitive. Sampras was THE best player of THE best era. I do agree that he managed his career very smartly, playing mostly on fast surfaces, and failing to win the most important slow court tournament, the French Open (even though he DID win 3 clay court tournaments in his career).
No question about Federer’s consistency, it’s unmatched. But the competition he has faced has played a significant part in that.
I’m not so sure the 1990′s was so great in men’s tennis. I’m going to research this some later but off the top of my head, I would say the women’s game had just as much starpower in the 1990′s
This level of competition debate that supposedly favors Sampras is crazy. Today’s players and level is certainly equal to back then. I have witnessed both era’s closely. (IMO)USA fans discount today’s level because there are no great USA champions! I think many people think somehow that makes the players out there somewhat less worthy- prob because they don’t get the press, etc in the USA to elevate their status. The other factor is that because Federer basically takes a spot in the Semifinals/ and Finals of every Grand Slam of recent memory and between him and Nadal win them all, these other great players that are out there simply don’t have the chance to have glittery resumes/ stick out in peoples minds.. Doesn’t mean they aren’t great- they are just stuck being beat by two all time greats..
The one really poor statement the article makes is that Federer has “not dominated any one surface like Sampras did”!!!? and you site Sampras dominating on Carpet?!! LOL… Federer has dominated on hard court (5 US Opens) (4 Australians) the 2nd most Masters tourny’s ever and counting, dominated Grass– 6 Wimbledon’s and counting + other tourny’s- and the 2nd most dominant on Clay- a surface Sampras would lose to him 90% of the time if they both played in their primes.. If not for Nadal- prob the best clay courter ever- Federer would be in the talks as one of the best clay players ever. and he is a better player than Nadal on all but that one surface! Federer is simply dominant on all surfaces.
Federer doesn’t get beat or upset by inferior players like Sampras did many times.
Finally, SAMPRAS say’s Federer is better!!! That should end the debate!
Peter, great, thorough comment. We appreciate it, as it’s folks like you that ADD to our humble site.
That said, I totally disagree!
I disagree that there are other “great” players in the ATP right now. If they were great, they would contend with the “all-time greats” they have the honor to share the court with. Thus far, they have not proved their level… they aren’t providing enough competition. A healthy Federer and Nadal are virtual locks for the semi-finals in every tournament. That fact doesn’t speak to the quality of the players in this era.
If Federer is matched up with Nadal more often, and turns his record against him from a losing record (6-9) to a winning one, I think it’s an easier argument to make. But, as things stand right now, Sampras dominated the other hall of famers of his era, and Federer struggles with the only other likely hall of famer in his era.
Thanks… I guess we’ll have to respectfully disagree on the level of today’s players… I believe based off of the eye test, that many of today’s players are just as good as the “hall of famers” of Sampras’ era. Sampras/Agassi let some of those players take some of the majors and big tournaments away from them. Therefore, elevating the status of those lesser player. Federer and Nadal don’t, so their competition doesn’t have the resume to impress. You can’t say these players don’t contend though. Look at what Roddick did Sunday. He played absolute top level tennis that could compete in any era – and lost.
I actually think that Nadal/Federer record will even out and Federer will pull ahead for the next couple of years… NOT on clay, but, on other surfaces. Federer is over the mono/back slippage – then confidence slippage – that let Nadal take some grass and hard wins. However, don’t forget, Federer is on the tail end of his prime, maybe past it, while Nadal is just in the heart of it… At some point Federer will be old, and probably take some more losses to Nadal… A little of that can be said now…
It would be nice and certainly take away most arguements if Fed outplays Nadal from here on out, but I just don’t feel that will take away from Federer though. As others have pointed out, all the greats have losing or less than dominant records against several players even mediocre… Federer could dominate Agassi towards the end of his career and beat an older Sampras (on grass) in his only matchup + if you’ve seen a Fed/Sampras exhibition match within the past few years as I have, Sampras can’t compete unless Fed plays at 3/4 level… That’s not taking away from Sampras as the player he was – he’s just older now… that’s how it should be… At some point Federer will not be as capable while Nadal still will be….
I still think for all the arguing among us fans – Sampras, McEnroe, Bjorg, Agassi, even Nadal, have all declared Fed the best ever… Even Laver has basically said so, though he says it shouldn’t be mentioned until he retires… Who would know better than those guys!!!!? US??? Lol!!
Thanks, Peter. On a side note, you’ve earned the right to comment on here as much as you’d like!
As well as Roddick played last weekend – and he played great – his inconsistency proves my point. He has the capacity to be a great player, but has not played with any consistency, showing the flaws of the non-Federer/Nadal players in this era. In the early to mid-1990s a player would have to defeat three or four multiple Grand Slam winners to win a Grand Slam. Those folks proved they could play consistently at a high level, and Sampras beat them all… a lot.
I agree with your second point on Nadal-Federer. Feds is getting older and Nadal is poised to add on to this lopsided record.
Even Fed’s win over an older, broken down Sampras took five sets!
If we waited until a career was over, what the heck would we debate??
Thanks! I look forward to visiting this site often!
I need say no more:
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1158868777397
That’s a great spot. I almost posted that in my article, but couldn’t make it fit. I think it’s an extremely well done ad – like Nike ALWAYS does.
Roger Fed-Head . . . the greatest player of all time — as long as Nadal isn’t around!
Every star needs a nemesis! Sampras had many!
A few points to mull over…
First off, as Steve Tignor states… “In one sense, Federer has been punished for doing better on Nadal’s favourite surface, clay, than Nadal has done on Federer’s best surface, hard courts. Federer is 2-5 against Nadal in slam finals because he has lost to him…in paris… on clay, 3 times. Nadal has never reached the final on the hard courts at the US Open and thus never faced Federer where he is the five time defending champion.
Next, the lack of many rivals does not indicate that the pool has weakened, but could instead question the quality of the champion. Imagine the shock if Sam Querry stepped forward and defeated Roger Federer in the 2009 Us Open. Better yet, imagine if Roger proceeded to then get dominated by Querry in the next 3 years of US Opens. Now we are treading on the domination that Sampras held.
There are very few that would argue that the game and its competitors have not expanded significantly. Consider the number of records alone that have been set in the decade since Sampras’s exit. Length of match in both sets and time, number of aces, speed of a serve… and the list continues. The game is undoubtedly faster and requires a natural progression in skill as would be expected. Would Sampras not be offended if the tennis players of today had not watched and learned from him just as Roger would be offended if the same did not occur. The amazing thing is that Roger has done so much in a time of increased skill and speed.
In the end, the rather sloppy presumption that because the last 5 years has not had a long list of grand slam winners is self defeating and circular in nature… you sir have picked an argument that is impossible to defeat… but also impossible to win. If a champion is defined by the number of important wins that their opponents rack up is that not self defeating.
Finally, my favorite sporting factoid to cite goes as follows… roger has now successfully made 22 grand slam semi finals in a row. Sampras’s comparable streak is 3. He has lost in grand slams to more than 10 different athletes ranging in ranks from top 10′s to outside of the top 30 rankings.
Now, if one hopes to argue that the field should be so competitive that either the top 30 players should be challenging Roger or one cannot justify Roger’s success then please be my guest.
Might be wise to note that Pete’s less than sporting reactions to Rafter, Courier and others may make him a far less worthy champion as well… true champions praise their opponents and learn from their mistakes…
Sampras will be remembered forever and Federer would be offended that this thread even exits for he loves tennis and worships pistol pete (note roger’s choice of racquet)… but to suggest that Sampras is better because Roddick, Murray, Djokovic, Del Potro, Verdasco, Blake, Davydenko and many more are not of a certain level is offensive to the broader game of tennis.
Nice comment, Jeremy – thanks.
While Federer lost to Nadal three times on the same surface, that means he is just 2-2 against him all time… hardly dominant.
Obviously our opinions differ. This is what makes sports debates so much fun. We’re both right.
In defense of the topic, the driving force behind the website is to engage in intelligent dialogue about sports. For me personally, I have a big problem with the general lack of perspective from both the sports media and some fans (you’re not included in that “some” by the way). When comparing historical achievements (as I’m sure we’ll be forced to do with Tiger Woods next year) there are so many factors to include that it can become difficult. The point of this argument, and many of our debates here, is to disabuse fans of the “what have you done most recently” mentality.
I do believe Sampras was more impressive, while not with the sport and class that Federer possesses. But, it’s like comparing two different cuts off the same diamond. They are both incredible, once in a generation players that history will look kindly on. I understand that Federer is a great admirer of Sampras, and vice versa.
Again, thanks for the comment.
A nice analysis which is even more true after Federer wins in Australia and Sampras does a dog an pony show gettingsmoked in San Jose by Verdasco for God knows what reason.
No doubt… it is only fair to acknowledge that as Federer continues to play, the Sampras argument becomes more difficult.
Great idea this, i am heading over to check out your entire site now. What you wrote is great advice any way that you look at it.
Follow me on Twitter
Thanks!
I think Federer further distances himself from Sampras with every grand slam he wins. Even John McEnroe agrees!