Is Roger Federer the Best Professional Eater Ever?

For those who do not know, Roger Federer of Switzerland is currently the #1 male tennis player in the world. At the time of this composition, he has held the #1 ranking for 137 consecutive weeks. Undoubtedly he will break Jimmy Connors' record of 160 weeks. With 9 Grand Slams already under his belt, Federer is on pace to break Pete Sampras' record of 14. So there is some debate that Federer's 'the best ever'.

Yet he hasn't broken Pete's Slam record, hasn't been at the top as long as Sampras, and hasn't won as many tournaments as he did. So, yes, while arguments can be made that he's the best tennis player ever, it's premature to anoint him as such. Although within ten years, barring injury or apathy, he will become indisputably Teh Bezt Evah.

However.

Given that most baseball fans are idiots, it is no surprise that their tennis counterparts are equally idiotic. Hence I often hear that Federer 'does it' against a weaker field than Sampras did. After all, Sampras regularly sparred with titans atop Mount Olympus, while Federer vanquishes overrated and one-dimensional husks like Andy Roddick. Yet these claims - oh, little surprise - are made with no basis in fact. Once again we're experiencing the transparency of nostalgia. Kind of like how Barry Bonds and Alex Rodriguez aren't as good as Willie Mays and Roger Maris simply because their pictures are never taken in sepia.

Imagine it's 1937. Imagine you just bought a radio and a car and are feeling the American dream. You also have what appears to be syphilis. So you take a holiday to England, and, like most classy gentlemen, you will watch an International Lawn Tennis Challenge match between Gottfried von Cramm and Don Budge. These players, you've read in many newspapers because you're so fashionable, are two of the world's best.

So you attend the match. And you see this:

These are athletes wearing pants.
Yes, long white pants.
Again.
These are athletes wearing long white pants.

The players of today are not weaker than the players of yesterday. In fact, it could be argued convincingly that the best clay player in tennis history is actively playing (Rafael Nadal). Without Federer, it's obvious that Roddick and Lleyton Hewitt and Nadal would have more Slams to their names. And their legacies are not yet finished. It's easy to reflect upon Sampras' greatness as he defeated Andre Agassi in the 1990 US Open, but at the time Agassi hadn't even won a Grand Slam.

Let us see if Sampras actually traversed the gauntlet as often as is suggested.

Wimbledon

Sampras won his second Grand Slam at the 1993 Wimbledon, where he faced Top 10 competition in every significant bracket. So that's one really tough tournament. Everything looks good so far. His first two Slams came from hard work, sweat, toil, and a hirsute chest that mine cannot hope to rival.

1994: he took down Michael Chang in the Quarters (seeded 10th), Todd Martin (6th) in the Semis and Goran Ivanisevic (4th) in the Finals. Ivanisevic was hardly an elite player; a good one, not elite. His entire career's worse than Andy Roddick's, and Roddick's just 24. In fact it's not even close; Ivanisevic was never even ranked #1 and has just one Slam.

I will now use a hierarchy of sorts to aid readability.

1995:

Quarters - Shuzo Matsuoka
Semis - Ivanisevic (4th)
Finals - Boris Becker (3rd), an obviously elite player who was at the tail end of his magnificent career. I don't see much difference between Sampras facing Becker in 1995 and Federer facing Agassi in 2005.

1996: Lord Michael of Queynte def. A. Hitler, 6-4, 6-0, 1-6, 1-6, 6-0.

1997:

Quarters - The Corpse of Andre the Giant (Becker, 8th)
Semis - Hacksaw Jim Duggan (Todd Woodbridge)
Finals - Cedric Pioline. Truly a test from the gods themselves. Agassi had withdrawn from this tournament due to injury.

1998:

Quarters - Mark Philippoussis
Semis - Tim Henman
Finals - Ivanisevic. It was also at this tournament that John McEnroe bemoaned the state of men's tennis, alleging that players earning millions of dollars were treating Wimbledon like 'just another tournament.'

1999:

Quarters: Mark Philippoussis (7th)
Semis: Tim Henman (6th)
Finals: Agassi (4th). So Sampras finally faces Agassi at Wimbledon. In 1999.

2000:

Quarters - Jan-Michael Gambill (aka Jean-Claude van Damme)
Semis - Vladimir Voltchkov (a qualifier!)
Finals - Patrick Rafter (12th) who had earlier beaten Agassi. The only seeded player whom Sampras faced this tournament.

The Australian Open, The Aussie Open, The Ghey, the Hierarchy is Done

1994: In the 4th round Sampras faced Ivan Lendl, though Lendl at this time had dropped all the way down to 15th. In the Quarters he faced #10 Magnus Gustafsson; in the Semis, his real challenge, that of #3 Jim Courier; and in the Finals none other than #9 Todd Martin whose claim to fame is coaching Mardy Fish.

1997: Albert Costa (10th), Thomas Muster (5th), and Carlos Moya, a rather motley cast of characters. You'd think instead that Federer won this tournament.

So perhaps Pete had stiffer competition in

The US Open.

Well, in 1993 he faced just one opponent seeded in the Top 10 (Michael Chang, #7, in the Quarters) throughout the entire tournament. He won after vanquishing our old friend Cedric Pioline.

1995, of course, was a good finish between him and Agassi; but how much different is this from Nadal and Federer? Both the best players in tennis at the time. And up to that point Sampras had beaten Jim Courier in the Semis, now seeded #14, and in the Quarters...Byron Black?

This is not a Broken Image. It's Byron Black.

1996 Open Finals was against Michael Chang (3rd). Up to then he defeated Ivanisevic in the Semis (6th) and Alex Corretja in the Quarters (and just barely escaped).

And he obviously had no problem winning in 2002, as he was now facing the chumps that Federer meets regularly. Andy Roddick, Sjeng Schalken, and an aging Andre Agassi (6th). Snore.

There are more tournaments than Grand Slams, obviously, but Sampras is largely known for his Grand Slam dominance, and, as you can see, he did not face elite talent time and time again. Rarely did he have a brutal bracket. The 1990 US Open and 1993 Wimbledon are the only Grand Slams where he was tested in each round by the Stuff of Legend.

Now what about Mr Roger Federer (note that I did not use a period after Mr; I learned that in the United Kingdom)?

Wimbledon

2003:

Quarters - Sjeng Schalken (8th)
Semis - Andy Roddick (5th)
Finals - Mark Philippoussis

This group looks eerily similar to some of Pete's competition.

2004:

Quarters - Hewitt (7th)
Semis - Sebastien Grosjean (10th)
Finals - Roddick (2nd)

2005:

Quarters - Fernando González
Semis - Hewitt (3rd)
Finals - Roddick (2nd)

2006: Quarters - Mario Ancic (7th)
Semis - Jonas Björkman
Finals - Nadal (2nd)

2004 Australian Open:

Quarters - David Nalbandian (8th)
Semis - Juan Carlos Ferrero (3rd)
Finals - Marat Safin

2006 Australian Open:

Quarters - Nikolay Davydenko (5th)
Semis - Nicolas Kiefer
Finals - Marcos Baghdatis

Pretty 'easy' tournament overall.

2004 US Open:

Quarters - Andre Agassi (6th)
Semis - Tim Henman
Finals - Hewitt (4th)

2005 US Open:

Quarters - David Nalbandian
Semis - Hewitt (3rd)
Finals - Agassi (7th)

2006 US Open:

Quarters - James Blake (5th)
Semis - Nikolay Davydenko (7th)
Finals - Roddick (9th)

Time for some percentages. Always awesome.

Of his 42 total Quarter/Semi/Final matches in those Grand Slams in which he triumphed, Sampras faced Top 10 competition 57% of the time. Federer, by contrast, defeated Top 10 competition 70% of the time. Now you will demur, 'Well, Petey may have faced less Top 10 competition than Federer, but his opponents were on the better side of the coin.' First, that metaphor makes no sense. Second, you haven't been following along. 28.5% of the time Sampras defeated Top 5 talent, whereas 37% of the time Federer did so.

For what it's worth, I don't put much stock in these numbers. Winning a Grand Slam is an amazing accomplishment. You've got the best players in the world, and those who advance are playing the best tennis at that time. I don't really think it matters if you did it against Lleyton Hewitt or if it you did it against John McEnroe. I'm just debunking a myth that Pete Sampras faced 'tougher' competition than Roger Federer. He didn't. Not in any way, shape, or form.

I know what you'll say. Rankings are meaningless when the talent pool's so diluted. Ergo, James Blake is only a Top 10 player because everyone else is horrible. But I'm not surprised you take this stance, as you distrust objective data. I've met you on baseball forums, and you've told me that Alex Rodriguez is bad at baseball. You've told me that Jason Varitek is the real MVP of the Boston Red Sox. Now you're telling me that men's tennis in the 21st century is tantamount to boy's tennis in the 17th century. Or squash down at the local YMCA. Right.

And the universe doesn't exist. I won't fall for that again!

Genesis