PDA

View Full Version : If Sampras didn't retire how many more GS ?


rfedererfan
12-03-2009, 11:07 AM
How many more titles would Sampras win if he didn't retire in 2002 ?

rfedererfan
12-03-2009, 11:09 AM
Also sorry for the english i know there should be some have-s in the question ^^^

Rhino
12-03-2009, 11:11 AM
Where is your option for zero, which is by far the most likely option?

OddJack
12-03-2009, 11:14 AM
Why 0 is not an option?

Mustard
12-03-2009, 11:20 AM
Sampras had been declining for nearly 2 years before his brilliant 2002 US Open triumph, although he was impressive at the 2000 and 2001 US Opens until he was destroyed in those finals.

AAAA
12-03-2009, 11:22 AM
If Sampras himself thought he had another Major in him he wouldn't have retired on 14.

JoelDali
12-03-2009, 11:25 AM
http://www.propartganda.com/king/images/goat.jpg

jamesblakefan#1
12-03-2009, 11:49 AM
In 2003, guys like Roddick, Hewitt, Federer, Safin, would have started beating Sampras on an even more consistent basis, not to mention the fact that Agassi was still around and playing top-level tennis. Safe to say, zero is the correct answer.

prosealster
12-03-2009, 12:04 PM
i wanted to vote for 0....

Anaconda
12-03-2009, 01:29 PM
0

Fail Thread!!!!

malakas
12-03-2009, 01:36 PM
46.He would even beat Federer's son in Wimbledon final 2030.

President of Serve/Volley
12-03-2009, 01:51 PM
1. The USO.

Meaghan
12-03-2009, 01:53 PM
0

but he still be top 10

the little dasher
12-03-2009, 02:13 PM
Zip. For sure. Even Pete knew that.

omniexist
12-03-2009, 02:18 PM
Should've been an option for 0.

C'mon, I like Sampras too but face it, he was struggling hard earlier and he was damn lucky to get that last slam...also had Agassi in the final who he does well against.

Kudos to him for finishing his career on a high note.

Cyan
12-03-2009, 02:20 PM
The same number of slams Fed will retire with.

8PAQ
12-03-2009, 02:22 PM
Sampras didn't retire. He was banned for using roids. He was given two options by ATP. Either retire or be suspended and have your last few slams taken away. So the answer to the poll is -3. Am I right Drakulie?

Cyan
12-03-2009, 02:32 PM
Lol...............

AM95
12-03-2009, 02:33 PM
ill give him the benefit of doubt and say 1. even it is more like 0

Marshredder
12-03-2009, 02:36 PM
Maybe a Wimbledon and a US Open, but nothing more.

TheChosenOne
12-03-2009, 08:38 PM
I think he could have managed 2 slams with the right draws. Maybe 3. If he had to deal with the same brutal 2001 USO type draw than I dont know. That was unreal. 3 former USO champions all in a row to have to defeat. Sampras lost alot of his overall game by 2002, but he was still good enough to win a few more. His speed and agility decreased but his serve was still booming and his attack game was still there even though he didnt have the overrall repetoire he had in his early-mid 20s.

Sampras went out winning a slam. That proved he could still do it. Its not as though he went out and just couldnt play anymore and was losing in the 1st round tournament after tournament. And he took out agassi at the USO who beat Hewitt just a round earlier. Pete could still play. Heck he can still play now. Could still beat anyone on tour today in a one match situation on a favorable surface. No doubt in my mind

Bud
12-03-2009, 08:55 PM
Where is your option for zero, which is by far the most likely option?

Exactly... zero.

JoshDragon
12-03-2009, 09:11 PM
How many more titles would Sampras win if he didn't retire in 2002 ?

Where is the zero option?

JoshDragon
12-03-2009, 09:14 PM
I think he could have managed 2 slams with the right draws. Maybe 3. If he had to deal with the same brutal 2001 USO type draw than I dont know. That was unreal. 3 former USO champions all in a row to have to defeat. Sampras lost alot of his overall game by 2002, but he was still good enough to win a few more. His speed and agility decreased but his serve was still booming and his attack game was still there even though he didnt have the overrall repetoire he had in his early-mid 20s.

Sampras went out winning a slam. That proved he could still do it. Its not as though he went out and just couldnt play anymore and was losing in the 1st round tournament after tournament. And he took out agassi at the USO who beat Hewitt just a round earlier. Pete could still play. Heck he can still play now. Could still beat anyone on tour today in a one match situation on a favorable surface. No doubt in my mind

Lol, Pete would have had no chance at 3. Never was in contention for the French and Roger won Wimbledon in 03, that only leaves 2003 US Open and the Australian Open, which he hadn't won in 6 years.

From that point on it was the Roger Federer era, which means that Pete would have never had a chance to win another major.

MuseFan
12-03-2009, 09:36 PM
Why no option for none?

TheChosenOne
12-03-2009, 09:38 PM
Lol, Pete would have had no chance at 3. Never was in contention for the French and Roger won Wimbledon in 03, that only leaves 2003 US Open and the Australian Open, which he hadn't won in 6 years.

From that point on it was the Roger Federer era, which means that Pete would have never had a chance to win another major.

Why couldnt he? He still had some good tennis left in the tank. Didnt play a taxing style of tennis. The game came easy to him like Federer. Its not as though he was physically incapable of winning slams.. The guy WON A SLAM before retiring. We dont know how Sampras would have responded at Wimbeldon in 03. He very likely could have won the USO in 03. And he could have even played into 04. Again.. I think it more or less had to do with Pete just not being mentally or focused on the game anymore and wanting to spend more time with his family. It had nothing to do with him not being physically capable or playing at a high level for another 2-3 slams. Because as he showed at the USO in 2002 he still could. I think it would all depend on his mindset and getting prepared for the slams. Physically he could still do it, mentally he lost the motivation. Sampras had a style of game where he could still do damage at an older age just based on his aggressiveness of serve and attack and with lighter draw he could have still managed. If Agassi could accomplish some pretty good feats physically even at the ripe old ages of 34-35 years of age. Im sure Sampras could have if he really wanted to pursue it. But by then, he already had broken the slam record and he by then felt there probably wasnt much left for him to do what he set out to do.

MuseFan
12-03-2009, 09:38 PM
By 2003 the game had already passed Sampy by. Good decision to retire after 2002 US Open win.

TheChosenOne
12-03-2009, 09:47 PM
By 2003 the game had already passed Sampy by. Good decision to retire after 2002 US Open win.

Oh yea because Sampras couldnt beat guys like 33-34 year old Agassi (someone he had been abusing for years), Schuettler, Phillipousis, Roddick, Grojsean or Moya or Nalbandian at some wimbeldons or USO's if he was actually focused on doing so:confused:

And Roger in 03-early mid 04, wasnt quite the deadly phenemenon yet. That would take a little more time. And even 34 year old Agassi took Roger to 5 sets at the USO in 2004.

People are talking as if Sampras was physically incapable of winning more slams and was some washed up losing in the 1st round of every tournament player. It was his lack of focus and drive later on more than it was his physical inability.

jamesblakefan#1
12-03-2009, 09:50 PM
Why couldnt he? He still had some good tennis left in the tank. Didnt play a taxing style of tennis. The game came easy to him like Federer. Its not as though he was physically incapable of winning slams.. The guy WON A SLAM before retiring. We dont know how Sampras would have responded at Wimbeldon in 03. He very likely could have won the USO in 03. And he could have even played into 04. Again.. I think it more or less had to do with Pete just not being mentally or focused on the game anymore and wanting to spend more time with his family. It had nothing to do with him not being physically capable or playing at a high level for another 2-3 slams. Because as he showed at the USO in 2002 he still could. I think it would all depend on his mindset and getting prepared for the slams. Physically he could still do it, mentally he lost the motivation. Sampras had a style of game where he could still do damage at an older age just based on his aggressiveness of serve and attack and with lighter draw he could have still managed. If Agassi could accomplish some pretty good feats physically even at the ripe old ages of 34-35 years of age. Im sure Sampras could have if he really wanted to pursue it. But by then, he already had broken the slam record and he by then felt there probably wasnt much left for him to do what he set out to do.

If Sampras could still win slams, he'd still be playing and wouldn't have retired. He knew he was done once he won that 02 USO, and that it was highly unlikely that he'd ever reach that status again in a major. He did the smart thing and went out on top, not wanting his lasting impression to be losing to some Bastl-esque nobody in front of his home fans in his last match.

Trust me, the field in 2003 took a significant step forward, as Roddick, Hewitt, and Federer solidified themselves as the next generation. No way he'd have beaten any of Roddick, Nalbandian, Hewitt, Ferrero, Federer, Agassi, etc to win the 03 USO. Wimbledon 2003 as others mentioned was the beginning of the era of Roger, and also slowed down grass IIRC. French...:lol: And Australia was never his best, hard to see him beating Andre even if he somehow miraculously made it to the final.

In short, Sampras retired when he did because he knew he was pretty much done winning GS titles, and that 02 USO was a godsend to be able to go out on top, as his hopes had looked bleak for the better part of 2 seasons for him ever winning another major.

jamesblakefan#1
12-03-2009, 09:54 PM
People are talking as if Sampras was physically incapable of winning more slams and was some washed up losing in the 1st round of every tournament player. It was his lack of focus and drive later on more than it was his physical inability.

If you're done mentally, you might as well be done physically. We've seen this mercifully for the past 2-3 years with Marat Safin. Still has it physically, just not enough left mentally to give it all to produce his best tennis.

Pete knows better than any of us. If he thought he still had any shot at winning majors in 2003 and beyond, he would have played. But he didn't.

TheChosenOne
12-03-2009, 09:57 PM
If Sampras could still win slams, he'd still be playing and wouldn't have retired. He knew he was done once he won that 02 USO, and that it was highly unlikely that he'd ever reach that status again in a major. He did the smart thing and went out on top, not wanting his lasting impression to be losing to some Bastl-esque nobody in front of his home fans in his last match.

Trust me, the field in 2003 took a significant step forward, as Roddick, Hewitt, and Federer solidified themselves as the next generation. No way he'd have beaten any of Roddick, Nalbandian, Hewitt, Ferrero, Federer, Agassi, etc to win the 03 USO. Wimbledon 2003 as others mentioned was the beginning of the era of Roger, and also slowed down grass IIRC. French...:lol: And Australia was never his best, hard to see him beating Andre even if he somehow miraculously made it to the final.

In short, Sampras retired when he did because he knew he was pretty much done winning GS titles, and that 02 USO was a godsend to be able to go out on top, as his hopes had looked bleak for the better part of 2 seasons
or him ever winning another major.



2003 was still very much a transitional year between the Sampras era and Federer era. It was hardly an all star cast of great talent or something like the 80s. You had broken back Sciatica Agassi still being a major player and abusing some of the youngsters . Fed was just beginning to his stride. When it came to Sampras.. Anything could happen. Obviously he wasnt what he was a decade prior. But I never looked at Sampras retiring in a way he just couldnt win anymore. With the right draws and circumstances he could have managed more. Godsend or whatever you say.. He still won and had to take out Agassi in the final to do so and Roddick earlier on. A player incapable of winning slams DO NOT win slams. Sampras was still capable and was still able to catch fire every now and then. That was the weird thing about his game. During the later stages in his career, he would look horrible. Then other times he would catch fire and blow his opponent off the court. We saw that a few times. And even against Roddick who never knew what hit him. Sampras also had experience on his side and understood his limitations and his strengths. Maybe 3 slams is pushing it possibly. But I could see him winning more than just that sole USO. Hewitt and Roddick were tough at the time, but again Sampras could catch fire and blow them all off the court just as he did with Roddick in 2002 at the USO and against Andre in 2002.

jamesblakefan#1
12-03-2009, 10:00 PM
2003 was still very much a transitional year between the Sampras era and Federer era. You had broken back Sciatica Agassi still being a major player. Fed was just beginning to his stride. When it came to Sampras.. Anything could happen. Obviously he wasnt what he was a decade prior. But I never looked at Sampras retiring in a way he just couldnt win anymore. With the right draws and circumstances he could have managed more. Godsend or whatever you say.. He still won and had to take out Agassi in the final to do so and Roddick earlier on. A player incapable of winning slams DO NOT win slams. Sampras was still capable and was still able to catch fire every now and then. That was the weird thing about his game. During the later stages in his career, he would look horrible. Then other times he would catch fire and blow his opponent off the court. We saw that a few times. And even against Roddick who never knew what hit him. Sampras also had experience on his side and understood his limitations and his strengths. Maybe 3 slams is pushing it possibly. But I could see him winning more than just that sole USO. Hewitt and Roddick were tough at the time, but again Sampras could catch fire and blow them all off the court just as he did with Roddick in 2002 at the USO and against Andre in 2002

OK now I get it...this is GAMESAMPRAS. Should've noticed it sooner.

TheChosenOne
12-03-2009, 10:00 PM
If you're done mentally, you might as well be done physically. We've seen this mercifully for the past 2-3 years with Marat Safin. Still has it physically, just not enough left mentally to give it all to produce his best tennis.

Pete knows better than any of us. If he thought he still had any shot at winning majors in 2003 and beyond, he would have played. But he didn't.

I agree.. If you are finished mentally you may as well call it quits and pete did. But I am arguing if Sampras wasnt finished mentally. He showed he was still physically capable because he went out winning a slam. Godsend as you say or not. He still had to get by Roddick and Agassi to win it

JoshDragon
12-03-2009, 10:30 PM
Why couldnt he? He still had some good tennis left in the tank. Didnt play a taxing style of tennis. The game came easy to him like Federer. Its not as though he was physically incapable of winning slams.. The guy WON A SLAM before retiring. We dont know how Sampras would have responded at Wimbeldon in 03. He very likely could have won the USO in 03. And he could have even played into 04. Again.. I think it more or less had to do with Pete just not being mentally or focused on the game anymore and wanting to spend more time with his family. It had nothing to do with him not being physically capable or playing at a high level for another 2-3 slams. Because as he showed at the USO in 2002 he still could. I think it would all depend on his mindset and getting prepared for the slams. Physically he could still do it, mentally he lost the motivation. Sampras had a style of game where he could still do damage at an older age just based on his aggressiveness of serve and attack and with lighter draw he could have still managed. If Agassi could accomplish some pretty good feats physically even at the ripe old ages of 34-35 years of age. Im sure Sampras could have if he really wanted to pursue it. But by then, he already had broken the slam record and he by then felt there probably wasnt much left for him to do what he set out to do.

2 reasons why Pete couldn't win another slam.

1. He was heading into the Federer era, 2003 was the final year before Roger's real prime but even then Roger played great at Wimbledon. Remember Pete was beaten by a qualifier in the second round back in 2002. No reason to think that Pete would have been able to bounce back, reach the finals and win against a vastly superior opponent.

2. He was too old to stay competitive with near prime Federer and prime Roddick.

Tennis_Bum
12-03-2009, 10:39 PM
Why 0 is not an option?

Ditto for both posts ^^.

edberg505
12-03-2009, 11:00 PM
OK now I get it...this is GAMESAMPRAS. Should've noticed it sooner.

Hahahahahaha, this is too funny. He almost always gives himself away.

Cesc Fabregas
12-03-2009, 11:10 PM
Sampras is the GOAT, he didn't need to win anymore slams.

dh003i
12-04-2009, 12:18 AM
2003 is the only year Sampras had a shot. After that, Federer dominated everything except for clay, where Nadal dominated. A twilight-of-his-career Sampras realistically had no shot then.

I think possibly 1. Sampras didn't get beyond the SF of the FO at his peak level, so he wasn't doing it in his twilight, and the AO was also relatively difficult for him. At Wimbledon, in 2003, there was Federer. He was already playing exceptional tennis then at Wimbledon. Pre-prime Federer beat Sampras at Wimbledon, so I think that Federer beginning his prime is definitely going to beat a twilight Sampras.

That leaves the US Open, 1 slam. He would have had to get to the final, and then beat Andy Roddick playing some of his best tennis. That isn't a given. So maybe he could have won 1 more slam.

People saying 2 slams I think are assuming he could nab the AO, but that was always his second weakest slam. And he'd have needed to beat Agassi (the champion that year) at some point. Sampras never beat Agassi at the AO before, don't think it is going to happen when Agassi's having a resurgence and Sampras is in the twilight of his career.

So maybe he could have won 1 more slam. The people saying 2 more are really pushing it. Even 1 more is pushing it. Remember, the US Open is at the end of the year. That makes Sampras another year older, and that's another year of grueling tennis.

This isn't to be at all disrespectful to Sampras. But his 2002 USO win was really quite impressive and quite miraculous. After 2 years of disappointments. It was a last hurrah. It didn't illustrate that he was still a consistent threat.

junbumkim
12-04-2009, 12:34 AM
I am one of the biggest Sampras fan, but I doubt he could have won any more slam.

More than anything, I don't think he could physically handle two weeks of 3 out 5 set matches. I remember watching his final match against Agassi, and he was noticably fatigued. That match went to 4th set, but it hadn't been long at all because Sampras pretty much killed Agassi in the first set and a half.

Yes, he was still capable of high quaility tennis and beat other guys. Yes, he played efficient serve-volley tennis and had serves to rely on. But, I doubt he could recover and get ready for 3 out 5 set matches for two weeks.

I guess he could have won either Wimbledon or US Open if none of his matches got delayed a day behind, if he wins his 2nd week matches in 3 sets. And, he gets full rest before the finals.

You need some amount of luck to win GS titles, but there were too many elements that need to go right for him to win one.

MuseFan
12-04-2009, 12:54 AM
By the end of 2002 Pete was mentally cooked. Pointless thread.

McBrat
12-04-2009, 03:42 AM
Sampras is the GOAT, he didn't need to win anymore slams.Sampras is the GOAT, he didn't need to win anymore slams.

fed_rulz
12-04-2009, 04:19 AM
OK now I get it...this is GAMESAMPRAS. Should've noticed it sooner.

Bingo! the dude never gives up :)

Omega_7000
12-04-2009, 04:28 AM
-1 If they found out he is on roids... :D

JRstriker12
12-04-2009, 04:33 AM
Zero - Pete was seeriously done with tennis and almost retired earlier.

Nuke
12-04-2009, 04:45 AM
Where is your option for zero, which is by far the most likely option?

Another vote for "none" here.

Anaconda
12-04-2009, 05:25 AM
Seeing as Safin/Hewitt/Roddick/Federer all have winning records against sampras there is no doubt about it that Sampras wouldn't have even made a final.

AAAA
12-04-2009, 05:57 AM
Zero - Pete was seeriously done with tennis and almost retired earlier.

He would have done if the media didn't niggle him about being washed up. The main reason he hung in there was to get back at press. He did that and then rather than risk losing by playing on he retired though some of his fans think he could have won some more. Pete definately wasn't sure enough about winning 3 more majors so he retired.

Anaconda
12-04-2009, 07:59 AM
2003 was still very much a transitional year between the Sampras era and Federer era. It was hardly an all star cast of great talent or something like the 80s. You had broken back Sciatica Agassi still being a major player and abusing some of the youngsters . Fed was just beginning to his stride. When it came to Sampras.. Anything could happen. Obviously he wasnt what he was a decade prior. But I never looked at Sampras retiring in a way he just couldnt win anymore. With the right draws and circumstances he could have managed more. Godsend or whatever you say.. He still won and had to take out Agassi in the final to do so and Roddick earlier on. A player incapable of winning slams DO NOT win slams. Sampras was still capable and was still able to catch fire every now and then. That was the weird thing about his game. During the later stages in his career, he would look horrible. Then other times he would catch fire and blow his opponent off the court. We saw that a few times. And even against Roddick who never knew what hit him. Sampras also had experience on his side and understood his limitations and his strengths. Maybe 3 slams is pushing it possibly. But I could see him winning more than just that sole USO. Hewitt and Roddick were tough at the time, but again Sampras could catch fire and blow them all off the court just as he did with Roddick in 2002 at the USO and against Andre in 2002.

What did this guy get banned for???

Brned
12-04-2009, 08:08 AM
0 I think.

quest01
12-04-2009, 08:39 AM
All I really have to say is that Pete Sampras shouldn't have retired, he came off winning a grand slam title at the US Open in 2002 then he mentally not physically had enough of the rigors of ATP tour life. I think he probably could have won 1-2 more grand slam titles but he may have crossed paths with Federer a few more times which would have been interesting. I don't know in a sense I would have loved to see more Sampras, Federer matches, but in reality Federer would have put Sampras to shame and into retirement.

JoshDragon
12-04-2009, 11:39 AM
Sampras is the GOAT, he didn't need to win anymore slams.

How can Pete be the GOAT, if he doesn't have the largest amount of grand slam titles or any French Opens?

kishnabe
12-04-2009, 11:55 AM
1 since if Sampras serve is on but to me i think sampras would be in the wimbledon final losing to federer in 4 sets.

Cantankersore
12-04-2009, 12:57 PM
What did this guy get banned for???

Probably being the reincarnation of a previously banned poster.

maddogz32
12-04-2009, 02:42 PM
personally i love pete sampras but i dont think he would have won another slam, it took too much for him to win the last us open, i dont think he could have done it again, so i answered 1

TMF
12-04-2009, 03:24 PM
personally i love pete sampras but i dont think he would have won another slam, it took too much for him to win the last us open, i dont think he could have done it again, so i answered 1

You lost me here. You said he wouldn’t win another slam but still vote one?

Why force yourself to vote out of your own belief.

Azzurri
12-04-2009, 03:24 PM
ZERO....I doubt he had enough left in his tank for another. Maybe if he had a better 02 Wimbledon I could see him win one more there, but that 2nd round loss showed he was just spent. Amazing he won in 02.

sammyboy
12-04-2009, 03:48 PM
Wth!!! Zero!!!

_maxi
12-04-2009, 04:31 PM
How many more titles would Sampras win if he didn't retire in 2002 ?
what about zero?