Federer vs Sampras after 12 Grand Slams. More dirt from Anand 101. Good job. Thanks.
Posted by tennisplanet on October 6, 2007
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%.