It's obviously fairly high variance without a lot of breaks, but when there are breaks they will be in Fed's favour significantly more frequently than in Sampras's and I think that plus the edge in tie breaks would be enough for me to be pretty confidant taking the over at 6.5 wins for Fed.

Oh hi there.

Lol. If you call crushing your horrendous "arguments" getting worked up, then I guess so. It's not hard to do though.

Say what? Are you now simply saying that Nadal is better than Federer H2H, but Federer is the best ever and the GOAT?


Never said Nadal is a chump, I've agreed that he is clearly the 2GOAT. Let's explore why you think my "imagine" post is stupid though. If Fed had 40 GS's, but all other numbers were the same - then Nadal would still be the 2GOAT and not some chump, and still have a winning H2H record vs Federer.

Would Nadal still be better than Federer overall in your opinion? Would Nadal have a reasonable case to be the GOAT over Federer? Or would Federer's 40 GS's make it clear that he is the GOAT over Nadal?

See, I can even buy this. I just don't think there will be enough breaks to matter. Peak Sampras ain't gettin' broken that often. It's going to tiebreakers.

Snap call. Ship the under an enormous amount of the time.

What do you say we invent a time machine and go back and collect peak Fed and peak Sampras to run this matchup, and bet $100k on it? I'll hold the escrow.

IIRC the grass at Wimbledon has slowed down significantly between the 90s and today.

The courts being slower now is part of why I give Fed a larger edge, since his serve numbers are essentially the same as Sampras whilst playing vs better returners on slower courts. With the raw numbers I did a (very, very) rough calculation and had Fed at just over 60% and I think the raw numbers quite significantly favour Sampras.

Again, I haven't disputed any points about Fed having an advantage for reasons such as those above - I've disputed that those things will give Fed a 70-30 edge instead of something like 55-45 or even 60-40.

I'm not interested in overall return or serve numbers, we're not talking about a general population. We're talking solely about Fed vs Sampras. The numbers that matter would be how often Fed breaks someone at Wimbledon with a serve as good as Sampras's and overall skills comparable to Sampras's. Obviously we're not going to get exact numbers on that, but the closest data to Sampras types at Wimbledon, even if inferior to Sampras, are going to matter a lot more than overall numbers.

I agree that Sampras is unlikely to break Fed. I just think that Fed is also unlikely to break Sampras. Some of you think he will break him often enough for it to create a 70-30 edge.

70-30 sounds insane to me, think about how large an edge that is in HU poker. There's not thaaat large a gap between Fed & Sampras at Wimbledon.

wasnt there like a 3-5 yr span where nadal was favored over fed? fed has the longevity but he was beaten for large portions of his peak by nadal and then by novak. peak is much more important than longevity in goat discussions.

Nah, they never really beat Fed during Fed's peak, except for Nadal on clay. They beat Fed over the course of his post-peak and decline.

In particular, Novak didn't get to break-even against Fed until Fed was 28-29, and Novak didn't have an edge against Fed until Fed was in his 30's. It's fair to say that Novak was too young earlier than that, but it's not fair to say that Novak beat peak Fed.

I can buy a peak > longevity argument, but true peak is more like a 5-year peak, and not some 1-year variance measurement.

There is though.

Fed does everything just as well as Sampras, and many thing way way better

Sampras had a huge edge vs Agassi because of the serve


Fed is going to get more of Pete’s serves in play

Than Pete will get fed serves in play.

Once the ball is in play

Fed > Pete

I’m giving Pete 3 of 10 because he will able to get to breakers and win some.

Fed was 29 when nadal and Novak were 24


Pete retired at like 30

pete was min/maxed for winning wimbledon. agassi much better athlete and tennis player by the eye test.

I don't disagree with any of that. None of that invalidates what I wrote earlier though. Although Fed > Sampras, my contention is that he will not be able to break Sampras often enough to have a 70-30 edge. It will go to tiebreakers a huge amount of the time.

Also, lol at "once the ball is in play" as if that is a good distinction. It is not. After a great server serves, even after the returner returns and the ball is in play, they are obviously not on equal footing.

When Sampras is serving, especially on his first serve, even after Fed gets it back in play, Sampras > Fed for many, if not most, of those points, due to the inherent advantage created by the serve.

Sampras won 20 of the 34 games they played against each other on the tour including 6 of 9 Major matches.

This thread is wild by times.

Agassi may be a better athlete but I don’t think anyone is saying Agassi > Pete in terms of a career


I feel blessed to be alive during this time of tennis

I’m hoping for a resurgence of the big 4

On 90s Wimbledon grass Sampras has a chance due to the massive serve. On the slower Wimbledon grass of 00s+ I think Federer wins handily.

So you guys think that Fed will break Pete's serve at Wimbledon handily. Ain't no thing.

J-Law-okay.gif

Hard court Djoker peak is -150 v. Federer peak @ Aus.
Grass Federer peak -130 v. Djoker peak @ Wim.
Clay Djoker peak -200 v. Federer peak @ RG.

The first two look reasonable. But you think that Djokovic beats Fed twice as much at the French Open? Is that supportable by evidence?

My god you made me feel so old just now.

Lol. Actually, I feel a bit bad for the young'uns who only know this Golden Age of tennis. Imagine watching the Big 4 for 10-15 years and thinking this is just how tennis is.

Sorry, kingweed, now you're set up for a lifetime of tennis disappointment. Someday your kids will have to hear all about how the top players were better back in your day...and this is one of the few cases where that kind of statement will probably be true!

Yup. Complety whiffing on the 80s 90s has gotta suck.

That last one is lol bad


Fed would be a fav on clay peak vs peak

I don’t feel like looking it up but fed was around 31 and beat peak joker at the French Prob 2012?

I've basically only known tennis since Roger has been on the scene. I remember when Wimbledon use to come on and the simpsons wouldn't be on BBC2 and it use to tilt the **** out of me when i was younger.

It's really crazy how this may end up being the case. I mean, the best player from 2003 is once again the best player today, because the best players who challenged and temporarily displaced him during periods from 2006-2016 have faded... that's just bizarre.

Equipment and training came a long way, but I'm one who thinks that the training and equipment the recent players had won't be surpassed anywhere near as quickly. Things are much closer to optimal now I would think. 80's players even with modern equipment would look ridiculous trying to compete with today's players, and maybe I'm naive, but I doubt I'll feel the same way about the players today vs the players we'll see in the 2030's. I guess it already proves my point that the best players from 10 years ago are still the best players today even after their aging has occurred.

Totally agree. An interesting line to make is, what is the O/U (what year) for:

1) When will someone surpass Federer as the GOAT?

2) When will 3+ players surpass the Big 4 for the Golden Age of tennis?


(at least 51% consensus needed for each Q)