He just chose to focus on the big ones, so losing the smaller ones didnt worry him so much. I guess he was great at pacing himself and looking at the big picture as he says. I think this sum sit up well:
August 21, 2002, Long Island
P. H. Mathieu/P. Sampras 6-3, 6-7, 6-4
Pete Sampras: "You have to remember who I am and where I'm playing next week. I know I've had a pretty disappointing year, [but] this is the U.S. Open, that's where I shine, and that's where I hope I shine... I'm a little discouraged, but you've got to look at the big picture."
September, 2003, Ace Tennis Magazine, UK
Tim Henman: "Sampras and I practised a lot together and seven out of 10 times we played practice sets I'd beat him. But when it came to big matches there was a gear change in him. On big occasions there's no one more determined than Sampras. He's the heaviest server I've ever played. It's important to differentiate between fast servers and heavy servers. Heavy serves come into you the whole time or they're placed exactly in the wrong spot. Your opponent can serve fast, but if you get a racket to it it's easier to get back than a heavy serve. Especially on Grass. This is what I think marked Sampras out as a great player."
And this sums up why hes better than all the other servers like Roddick(and the rest of Sampras' game is better thanA-rod, and a-rod still manages #5):
August 25, 2003, US.Open
M. FISH/J. Johansson 6-3, 6-2, 6-4
An interview with: MARDY FISH
Q. What is the one aspect of Pete's game or demeanor that maybe is lost on people that aren't so knowledgeable about tennis but that you really admire and appreciate?
MARDY FISH: You know, I loved watching him. He would always get that one break in a set. I mean, obviously he wouldn't every time. But, you know, you rarely ever saw Pete get like a second break in a set. He just had so much confidence on his serve games to hold serve that, you know, he knew that all he needed was one break. Especially at Wimbledon, all he needed was one break, and he'd pretty much win the set every time. It was amazing to see somebody just with so much confidence. You know, he didn't have a serve that was like Roddick's or Rusedski's. Actually, Rusedski is a bad example. But like Andy's, just blows it by you. He could hit it if he wanted to, but he took a lot of pace off it and he placed it. There's nobody better, ever. I mean, I remember watching him at Saddle Brook when I trained when I was there when I was younger. He trained there. They'd put cones up for the serves. He would knock down the cones in 10 serves. It was amazing.
June 25, 2004
L. HEWITT/G. Ivanisevic 6-2, 6-3, 6-4
An interview with: GORAN IVANISEVIC
Q. The single toughest player that you faced over your career and the toughest stroke that you've had to deal with?
GORAN IVANISEVIC: Maybe toughest player I ever play is Pete, you know, because is guy that gives you only one, two chances per match, and if you don't take those chances, you finish. Usually with all these guys, I play lot of matches, but usually you get more chances. With him, two, three if he's generous, you know. I think with him it was the toughest for me to play.
Q. Does he [Federer] have a greater range of talents than Pete? How would you explain?
GORAN IVANISEVIC: Some things he does better than Pete. I mean, on the court he's like magician. Pete was destroying. Pete was serving. Nobody talked ever about Pete's serve. They were only talking about my serve. But when you play Pete, you couldn't touch his serve, you know. Even when you returned, then he hits forehand winner and the point is finish. But Federer, the way he plays, he's back, he comes in. When you look him, you think tennis is very easy sport, but it's not.
LMAO at the sampras troll tennis dude.
sampras lost to so many journeymen even in his prime and had to play so many mickey mouse tournies during the indoor season to preserve his #1 rank.
And this guy thinks a past his prime pete sampras can win NOW?