Across The Net: Sharapova and Federer win this week and Federer vs. Sampras Part 1 – History

Posted by Dan Martin on 10.23.2006

A quick look at this weeks results and part 1 of a championship collision between Pete Sampras and Roger Federer

This Week in Tennis

Maria Sharapova won the Zurich Open in her quest to finish 2006 at #1. I don't think Sharapova has been the best player in the world this year even if the computer says so by the end of the year. However, she is a good bet to finish 2007 and maybe even 2008 as a legitimate world #1.

Roger Federer won Masters Series Madrid for his 10th title of the year. Federer did not drop a set all week in an event that fielded all ten of the world's best players. He has extended his winning streak to 17 matches. Roger's ten titles have not come at small market events. Federer has won three of four Grand Slams and four of the eight Master's Series events contested in 2006. More on Federer's win below.

Sampras vs. Federer Part I

Pete Sampras' retirement after winning an improbable 14th Grand Slam event at the 2002 U.S. Open seemed to cement his status as the greatest player in the modern era of tennis. Who could make a case to having been better than a man who had seemingly done it all? I have two words that might count as an answer: Roger Federer

Setting the Terms of the Debate

The argument between Federer and Sampras can be held on at least two different fields of comparison. First, one can compare their respective historical achievements and draw conclusions from that data. Second, one can break down a set of hypothetical matches on the major surfaces and try to determine who would win the majority of these matches.

Federer's chances seem much better when in the mental exercise of constructing hypothetical matches. After all Federer is almost exactly ten years younger than Sampras and thus has an incomplete historical mark. Baring an ill advised Michael Jordan style comeback, Sampras has a complete set of historical data for judgment. If Federer retires at the same stage of his career as Sampras did, his historical record would extend to the end of the 2012 season. If Federer plays to the age of 36, like Agassi did, Federer's career could extend through 2017.

So how can Federer win an argument by turning in an incomplete assignment?

The answer at one level of course is that he cannot.

Consider the following:

> Sampras owns a men's tennis record 14 Grand Slam titles (12 was the previous record)
> Sampras finished a record 6 consecutive years at #1
> Sampras held the #1 ranking a record 286 weeks
> Sampras is one of three men to win four or more consecutive Wimbledon titles (Borg and Federer being the other two)
> Sampras won 7 out of 8 Wimbledon titles between 1993 and 2000
> Sampras and Jimmy Connors are the only two Open Era players to win 5 U.S. Open Titles
> By winning the 1993 Wimbledon, the 1993 U.S. Open and 1994 Australian Open, Sampras is one of two men to win three consecutive Grand Slam titles since Rod Laver won the Grand Slam in 1969 (Federer is the other player)

Sampras' Opening Statement is a Strong One. How can Federer make a case for being a better player when it comes to history?

To construct such an answer a Federer-backer has to concede that the totality of many of Sampras' historical marks is currently out of Federer's reach. However, those who choose Federer could argue that for at least three years, a significant period of time, Federer has outshined any individual or collective set of years in Sampras' career.

Federer's Marks

> 1st man since 1988 to win three Grand Slams in one calendar year 2004 (Wimbledon, the Australian Open and U.S. Open)
> Federer became the first man in the Open Era to ever win three Grand Slams in a calendar year twice in 2006
> In 2006 Federer became the first man since Rod Laver in 1969 to reach all four Grand Slam finals in one single year
> Federer is the only man to ever win the U.S. Open and Wimbledon in the same year for three consecutive years 2004-2006
> Federer holds an active longest Grass Court winning streak of all time at 48 matches (previous record Borg won 41 matches in a row on grass)
> Federer holds the longest hard court winning streak of all time at 56 matches (previous record Sampras won 34 consecutive matches on hard courts)
> Federer went undefeated vs. players ranked in the top ten in 2004 posting a 23-0 mark vs. the world's best!
> Federer won 24 consecutive tournament titles when reaching the final stretching from October 2003-November 2005 (the previous record was 12 held by Borg and McEnroe).
> Federer reached 17 consecutive tournament finals - stretching from June 2005-August 2006 he did no worse than finish as a runner-up (2nd to Lendl's 18 consecutive finals)
> Federer has now won the second most Masters Series/Super Nine titles (Agassi first at 17, Federer second at 12 and Sampras third at 11)
> Federer is the only man to win his first 7 Grand Slam finals (the previous record was 3)
> Federer is the first man since Ivan Lendl to win 80 or more matches in three consecutive years
> Federer is the first man in the Open Era to win at least 10 titles in three consecutive years (11 in 04, 11 in 05, 10 to this point in 06)
> Federer is the only man to hold over a 90% winning percentage in two different years. At 82-5 in 2006 Federer is on track to become the first man to do so three times.

So what do all of these numbers tell us? One could say that Federer has not accomplished as much as Sampras, but many of Federer's accomplishments (especially between 2004 and 2006) are out of even Sampras' league. Winning 24 consecutive tournament finals, finishing two and likely three years with over a 90% winning percentage, winning three out of four Slams in one year on two occasions, and reaching all four Grand Slam finals in one calendar year are all things Sampras never did. The surface streaks on Grass and Hard Courts along with going 23-0 vs. the top ten players in the world in 2004 are also staggering achievements.

Consider Sampras's best year in Grand Slam competition was 1993. Sampras won Wimbledon and the U.S. Open, reached the semis of the Australian Open and quarters of the French Open for an extraordinary mark of 23-2 in Grand Slam play.

Federer's 2005 saw Federer finish 24-2 in Grand Slam play. In 2004 Federer went 23-1 in Grand Slam play and in 2006 Federer went an astounding 27-1 in Grand Slam play.

Thus, Sampras best year in Grand Slams would be 4th best for Federer – three years better in the biggest events is a big deal.

Sampras' won a personal best 10 tournaments in 1997. Federer has won 10 in 2006 and won 11 in 2004 and 2005. Sampras was able to get to double digits once. Federer did this three times.

I would conclude from this that it would take a better player than Sampras to do what Federer has done in 2004, 2005 and 2006 because each of those years exceed any single year in Sampras' career.

So the historical debate is at best a split decision in my book. Federer has a brighter period (more than one tournament or even one year) than Sampras ever had. However, Sampras' overall career still has marks Federer has not been able to match.

Sampras vs. Federer the debate continues…

Part II – Who would win the majority of their matches on Outdoor Hard Courts, Clay Courts, Grass Courts and Indoor Courts? I'll tell you who and why next week.