4 years and running as nr1, will he beat Sampras´ 6 years?

2699 Views 66 Replies 32 Participants Last post by rwn, Oct 31, 2007

marcRD

Discussion Starter · Oct 28, 2007 (Edited)

Well, what do you think? Will he match Sampras "impossible" record and maybe even pass it?

It would surely be the last record you could think of anyone passing, another scenario which is more unlikely is matching Pancho Gonalez 8 years of domiantion in the pro tour in the 50s. Personaly I see Federer dominating for exactly 4 more years, enought to equal Gonzalez domination, but some think he is already declining and if this would be the case he should only have 1-2 years left as nr1. Personaly I cant see the decline, my personal belief is that we may even not have seen his peak yet.

PS: I am talking about ending each year as nr1 and not if he can keep the consecutive weeks as nr1.

1 - 20 of 67 Posts

CmonAussie

· #2 · Oct 28, 2007

FED`s peak was 2006
**
Roger should have finished 2003 as #1, then he`d be @ 5-years straight YE #1 already.
He`s going to focus more & more on slam wins only [you could already see that this year].
Expect FED to be less dominant overall but he`ll still win the majority of slams for the next 2 years!

My answer is: he`ll be lucky to equal it, but unlikely to break it.
Anyway>>> more importantly FED will blow Pete`s slam record away maybe even next year<

marcRD

Discussion Starter · #3 · Oct 28, 2007

His results were obviously better 2006 than 2007, which means it is so far his peak year. However, he has proven all talk about a decline not to be true, winning even more points than last year after Rome and 8 straight finals losing only to great opponents (Nadal on clay and redhot Djokovic and Nalbandian on hardcourt).

stebs

· #4 · Oct 28, 2007

No more years - 30%
Reach 5 years - 50%
Equal the record - 12.5%
Beat the record - 5%
8 or more years - 2.5%

tennis2tennis

· #5 · Oct 28, 2007

please note that roger's ranking is consecutive he's the record holder with connors second///roger can have a stinker of a season,as sampras did winning 1 or 2 slams and still walk away with the year ending no#1 as Sampras had done....so yeah he can have 6 year ending's no 1

belco

· #6 · Oct 28, 2007

marcRD

Discussion Starter · #7 · Oct 28, 2007

stebs said:
No more years - 30%
Reach 5 years - 50%
Equal the record - 12.5%
Beat the record - 5%
8 or more years - 2.5%

That doesnt make much sense to me as Federers gap down to nr2 is big and Nadal has proven to have limitations when it comes to gaining points away from the clay season. If Federer ever would feel threatened he could play some more minor tournaments to secure his nr1 spot, Sampras was nr1 with a really small gap down to the nr2 and always found a way to end nr1, Federer is still dominating this year as Sampras never did even during his best years, he is nowhere close to losing his spot anytime soon, certanly not next year, if the gap down to nr2 ould be around 500-1000 then your odds would be correct.

FedererSlam

· #8 · Oct 28, 2007

yeh maybe he wont spend over 6 years consecutive as no.1 but I definitely think he can finish YE #1 like sampras did with good finishes!

MisterQ

· #9 · Oct 28, 2007

CmonAussie said:
Roger should have finished 2003 as #1, then he`d be @ 5-years straight YE #1 already.

I find this hard to back up, since Roddick had a stellar year in 2003 (outside of the clay season :lol: ). Andy performed better overall than Roger in the slams; Andy also won 2 TMS titles, while Federer won zero. Federer's performance at the final Masters Cup was out of this world, and there's no question he was the best in the world that week -- but Roddick outperformed him earlier in the year.

As for the question at hand, I certainly believe Federer could pull off 2 or 3 more years ending as No. 1. But will he be able to continue this streak of consecutive weeks at No. 1? (one of his most astonishing accomplishments, imo)

Omnipotence

· #10 · Oct 28, 2007

stebs said:
No more years - 30%
Reach 5 years - 50%
Equal the record - 12.5%
Beat the record - 5%
8 or more years - 2.5%

Interesting.

No more years - 10%
Reach 5 years - 30%
Equal the record - 40%
Beat the record - 15%
8 or more years - 5%

LinkMage

· #11 · Oct 28, 2007

Too bad his only loss to Robo Rod costed him the #1 in 2003. If he had finished #1 in 2003 he would have had a real chance of surpassing Sampras' record of 6 straight years ending #1. I don't see Fed finishing #1 in 2010. I'm not even sure he'll tie the record. IMO next year will be his last as #1.

marcRD

Discussion Starter · #12 · Oct 28, 2007 (Edited)

Most will think this is too optimistic, but I really am trying to look beyond what would be normal with Roger, because his domination during his peak has been totaly abnormal and so I would think his domination after his peak will still be good enought (winning 1-2 slams/year) to end nr1.

No more years 7%
Reach 5 years 10%
Equal the record 20%
Beat the record - 20%
8 years - 25%
9 years - 12%
10 or more years -6%

Ok, this may sound absurd to most of you, but whoever would predict that Federer would win 11 slams between 2004-2007 would surely sound like a madman to you, right? Why would you still feel like predicting Federers future like his domination was at Sampras or Lendls level?

I tell you this, Federer right now is playing much better tennis than Sampras was playing at Federers age or even during his best year (94). So if he declines like Sampras, he would still prob equal Sampras record. On the other hand, Sampras looked much older on the court when he was the same age as Federer, I personaly think that Federer will be aging wont be as hard on his body like Sampras.

See less See more

Bilbo

· #13 · Oct 28, 2007

the answer you are searching for is YES

Merton

· #14 · Oct 28, 2007

This is one of the most overrated records ever, I always failed to understand what is so special about year-end #1. This is really no different than any other week as #1, the record that matters imo is # of weeks as #1 rated player, barring injuries Roger has very good chances of making that.

Reactions: 1

kokket

· #15 · Oct 28, 2007

Merton said:
This is one of the most overrated records ever, I always failed to understand what is so special about year-end #1. This is really no different than any other week as #1, the record that matters imo is # of weeks as #1 rated player, barring injuries Roger has very good chances of making that.

yep
who cares who end as no. 1?

Total Weeks at number 1
1. Pete Sampras 286
2. Ivan Lendl 270
3. Jimmy Connors 268
4. Roger Federer 196

and

Consecutive Weeks at number 1
1. Roger Federer 196
2. Jimmy Connors 160
3. Ivan Lendl 157
4. Pete Sampras 102

are perhaps "important"

everybody knows that the GS record is THE Tennis record

See less See more

R.Federer

· #16 · Oct 28, 2007

LinkMage said:
Too bad his only loss to Robo Rod costed him the #1 in 2003. If he had finished #1 in 2003 he would have had a real chance of surpassing Sampras' record of 6 straight years ending #1. I don't see Fed finishing #1 in 2010. I'm not even sure he'll tie the record. IMO next year will be his last as #1.

If you feel that beating Andy was enough to give him a chance of surpassing Sampras (ie, he would win more than 6) then without that he should at least match Sampras. How can you then say that he will not even 6 (ie, tie the record) without that one year?

NYCtennisfan

· #17 · Oct 28, 2007

Total weeks and #1 and consecutive weeks at #1 are more important. Even if Fed doesn't get the total weeks at #1 mark, but he does get something like 240 in a row, that would be good enough.

He was one match away from probably (changing of results in these particular outcomes could change outcomes later since different things are on the line) ending 2003 #1. A win against Andy in Canada with a break in the third, Nalbandian winning against Roddick at the USO, beating JCF in Madrid, and so on.

Sjengster

· #18 · Oct 28, 2007

Regarding 2003, it was basically his inability to beat Nalbandian that made sure he wouldn't end the year no. 1 - two 4th round defeats at the AO and USO, after which he would have had winnable QF matches to get to a last four meeting with Roddick in both cases. One can't deny looking at their results that year that Roddick totally deserved the top ranking with superior Slam and Masters results. Ferrero was far superior to Federer in those departments as well, it was only because he had such a bad ending to the year that he finished no. 3 in the world.

R.Federer

· #19 · Oct 29, 2007

Sjengster said:
Regarding 2003, it was basically his inability to beat Nalbandian that made sure he wouldn't end the year no. 1 - two 4th round defeats at the AO and USO, after which he would have had winnable QF matches to get to a last four meeting with Roddick in both cases.

It's hard to attribute to just that. For instance, maintaining the same losses to David Nalbandian in the slams but going one step further in Canada/Cincy whichever it was would have been enough. So you could just as well attribute it to Roddick -- and that would be somewhat more fitting because that's the guy who took the No.1 home that year instead of him.

marcRD

Discussion Starter · #20 · Oct 29, 2007

R.Federer said:
It's hard to attribute to just that. For instance, maintaining the same losses to David Nalbandian in the slams but going one step further in Canada/Cincy whichever it was would have been enough. So you could just as well attribute it to Roddick -- and that would be somewhat more fitting because that's the guy who took the No.1 home that year instead of him.

Well it was Nalby who took him out in Cincy too and in Basel!

So it is fair to blame Nalby for taking away the nr1 title from Federer.

Roddick just won a slump match against Federer, he hardly was in his way to win anything important that year.

1 - 20 of 67 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.