Federer vs Sampras after 12 Grand Slams. More dirt from Anand 101. Good job. Thanks.
Posted by tennisplanet on October 6, 2007
Anand_101 |
More on Fed vs Sampras after 12th Slam
==============================
Looking specifically at Slam matches, at their 12th Slam Win, Sampras and Fed compare as follows:
* Both were 12-2 in Slam Finals.
* Slam Match W/L: Sampras 161-28 (85.2%), Fed 138-22 (86.3%). Very close.
* Surprising is that Sampras was pretty solid at RG (71.8% vs Fed 74.3%). Or did Fed underachieve at RG…
* It took Sampras 189 Slam matches to get to the 12th Slam W. Fed did in 160. No surprises, everyone knows Fed is on a rampage and has raced past Sampras after a slow start.
* Fed faced Top 10 opponents in Slams 24% of the time while Sampras faced them only 16% of the time. Weak era Sampras?
* However they were almost identical in W/L over Top 10’ers (thus far), Sampras 77.4% and Fed 76.9%
After his 12th Slam Win in 1999:
* Sampras slowed down to the point that he never gained another year-end #1 ranking.
* He won only 66.7% of his next 9 matches against Top 10’ers.
* In fact after his 13th Slam Win in 2000, which put him ahead of Emerson, Sampras lost his edge, and he lost two USO Finals. But to his credit he showed his champion mantle by winning his 14th against the odds.
Weak Era Theory
================
* In 160 Slam matches, Fed has had to face Top 10 opponents 39 times, i.e. 24% of the time; Sampras faced Top 10′ers 31 times out of 189, i.e. only 16% of the time.
* Sampras did not meet a single Top 10′er in 29 of 52 Slam attempts(!) Fed has had 12 of 34 with no Top 10′ers.
Ergo, the top players today have been more consistent in getting to the last stages.
Enough ammunition to blow the freaking weak era theory out of the water??
Quick note: Sampras’ 31 Top 10ers of 189 were thru his 12th Slam win. Full career figures were 40 Top 10ers in 241 matches i.e. 17%.
Gracie said
Nice work, Anand_101. How many matches has each played at RG to make those percentages?
I feel it’s safe to say that Roger’s post-12th slam stats are going to be better than Pete’s. I don’t see him ‘losing his edge’ before he’s slammed all the doors on the records. Plus Sampras had two years on Federer when he won his 12th Major.
Arbit said
very nice analysis Anand….but as far as i recall….there was one statistic which i read somewhere (i am really lazy to dig in though right now)…..that if you tally the percentages of each top 10ers in the federer era according to their performance in the grandslams (like w-l record)…..there was more consistency of top 10ers in sampras’s era…..in your statistic…..top10ers are consistent but not individual players in the top 10 per se..i.e. top 10 players reach deep in the granslam but they can be different players….which kind of skews the analysis a bit…because arguement can always be made that players in the top10 in sampras era were better…more consistent… ….and present top10ers are really inconsistent….on the other hand you can also say that in the present generation….competetion is really cut-throat between top 10ers uptill top 30 or so…….anyway nice analysis
Anand_101 said
Thanks Gracie.
Thru his 12th Slam Win, Sampras was 28-11 at RG; Fed is 26-9. After that Sampras went 1-3 so that hurt his final percentage (29-14 i.e. 67.4%).
Yes, Nadal still hasn’t figured out hard courts and so that’s two Slams and two Slam Finals plus TMC and assorted goodies that make for a low-risk formula to stay over 6000 points. So even two “average” years should seal it for Fed.
You know, what Sampras gave us was the affirmation that if you really go after it, you can do it. Fed is just as focused on smashing the records, but the statement he seems to be making is: not only can you do it, but you can also find a way to do it effortlessly, painlessly
.
Kristian said
cool reading,…just one thing it says Sampras has a 12-2 stat in slamm finals,but further down it saysthatPete lost 2 us open finals after 1999,Ireemeber him losing to Agassi in Australia and Edberg at the us open too,..so how does that add up!?or am I missing something,…hmmm
stuart said
Kristian- Sampras ended up 14-4 in slam finals. The two losses you note and then he lost to Safin at the USO in 2000 then Hewitt in 2001.
All adds up
Anand_101 said
Arbit, nice observation re: the depth. Tennis is a very dynamic sport (in fact most sports are). By that I mean, just because you were Top 10 last year (or even last month) doesn’t mean you are still in that form. By the same token, if Sampras beat Becker ranked 18 in Wimbledon 1997 QF, is it the same level of opposition as Becker ranked 4 in Wimbledon 1995 Final…
So I suggest that if Fed played more people who were *then* Top 10, that means he was playing men in form, and had a tougher draw. And also perhaps that these days, men in form are more likely to make it to the upper stages of Slams, i.e. less likely to get upset, indicating greater consistency.