Just finished reading Pete's book, "A Champion's Mind"---it was pretty good.
Without doing an internet search, what 5 players do you think had a winning head-to-head match record against him? Yes, Krajicek was one of em. The 4 others are alittle surprising.
Yep---Krajicek, Bruguera, Hewitt, and Stich.
There's one other guy.
(Sorry, I'm talking about singles, not doubles.)
Leander Paes beat Pete Sampras in singles, not doubles (new haven 1998)
Just finished reading Pete's book, "A Champion's Mind"---it was pretty good.
Without doing an internet search, what 5 players do you think had a winning head-to-head match record against him? Yes, Krajicek was one of em. The 4 others are alittle surprising.
Yep, Safin is the 5th guy.
There's one other non-rival that beat Pete---Mark Keil, star of that "Journeymen" documentary. Mark beat him at Queen's Club in 1991.
Michael Stich
Hewitt
haarhuis
paes
The appendix of Pete's book is entitled "About My Rivals", where he talks about his match record against Becker, Bruguera, Chang, Courier, Edberg, Ferreira, Hewitt, Ivanisevic, Kafelnikov, Korda, Krajicek, Kuerten, Martin, Muster, Philippoussis, Rafter, Rios, Safin, and Stich.
These are the guys that Pete considered to be his rivals.
The appendix of Pete's book is entitled "About My Rivals", where he talks about his match record against Becker, Bruguera, Chang, Courier, Edberg, Ferreira, Hewitt, Ivanisevic, Kafelnikov, Korda, Krajicek, Kuerten, Martin, Muster, Philippoussis, Rafter, Rios, Safin, and Stich.
These are the guys that Pete considered to be his rivals.
Where's Agassi?
Here are Sampras' head-to-head records against Agassi and those players mentioned above:
Pete Sampras 20-14 Andre Agassi (Pete Sampras 6-3 Andre Agassi in majors)
Pete Sampras 12-7 Boris Becker (Pete Sampras 3-0 Boris Becker in majors)
Pete Sampras 2-3 Sergi Bruguera (Pete Sampras 1-1 Sergi Bruguera in majors)
Pete Sampras 12-8 Michael Chang (Pete Sampras 4-1 Michael Chang in majors)
Pete Sampras 16-4 Jim Courier (Pete Sampras 6-2 Jim Courier in majors)
Pete Sampras 8-6 Stefan Edberg (Pete Sampras 0-2 Stefan Edberg in majors)
Pete Sampras 7-6 Wayne Ferreira (Pete Sampras 1-0 Wayne Ferreira in majors)
Pete Sampras 4-5 Lleyton Hewitt (Pete Sampras 1-1 Lleyton Hewitt in majors)
Pete Sampras 12-6 Goran Ivanisevic (Pete Sampras 4-1 Goran Ivanisevic in majors)
Pete Sampras 11-2 Yevgeny Kafelnikov (Pete Sampras 1-1 Yevgeny Kafelnikov in majors)
Pete Sampras 12-5 Petr Korda (Pete Sampras 1-1 Petr Korda in majors)
Pete Sampras 4-6 Richard Krajicek (Pete Sampras 1-1 Richard Krajicek in majors)
Pete Sampras 2-1 Gustavo Kuerten (Pete Sampras 0-0 Gustavo Kuerten in majors)
Pete Sampras 18-4 Todd Martin (Pete Sampras 6-1 Todd Martin in majors)
Pete Sampras 9-2 Thomas Muster (Pete Sampras 3-0 Thomas Muster in majors)
Pete Sampras 7-3 Mark Philippoussis (Pete Sampras 5-2 Mark Philippoussis in majors)
Pete Sampras 12-4 Patrick Rafter (Pete Sampras 2-1 Patrick Rafter in majors)
Pete Sampras 2-0 Marcelo Rios (Pete Sampras 1-0 Marcelo Rios in majors)
Pete Sampras 3-4 Marat Safin (Pete Sampras 2-2 Marat Safin in majors)
Pete Sampras 4-5 Michael Stich (Pete Sampras 1-0 Michael Stich in majors)
And that list didn't include Rusedski or Henman. No wonder Rusedski hates Sampras.
Well I suppose no rivalry, Sampras was a combined 16 - 2 against both players.
Whether if you play 1 time or 20 times, it still count as a win. Whether one player was(or wasn't) in his prime another story.
you can't classify 1 or 2 matches as a rivalry though
takes 5 at least if you ask me
consistent top players meeting each other
if i remember rightly, sampras discusses henman in detail in the actual text
besides, lets be honest, it was not a rivalry. vienna 1998? ridiculous
what was it, 6-1 to sampras eventually?
It still count as a win. Especially at the grand slam when the loser happens to be a defending champion.
I put that match on youtube back in 2010. That really was a mauling, no other way to describe it :twisted:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmbervegakA
i've no idea why you're bringing federer(?) into this
this is about sampras' rivals. federer was not a rival of his
you're not actually answering what i said - takes more than 1 match for a rivalry. at least 5 i reckon
I can use another example besides Federer if you want me to.
Whether if you think at least 5 matches makes a rival is up to you. I'm not saying that you can't makeup your own rules(and no one has to agree). My point is in a real match, a win is a win. Your suggesting a win(or a loss) doesn't count if they haven't meet at least 5 times. If that's what you're trying to tell me than I disagree.
Himself was his greatest rival. If he had as much consistency as Federer, he would have won even more than 14 majors. Also, if he enjoyed the sport more, he would have played longer and won even more.
i think you need to look up what rivalry means
ri·val·ry
/ˈrīvəlrē/
Noun
Competition for the same objective or for superiority in the same field.
people like federer, von cristenberg, schaller, and whoever else sampras played once and lost (or played once and beat) to are not his rivals
not sure why you can't grasp this
it's like calling rosol a rival of nadal. he just isn't
you're clinging to the fact that federer beat sampras once, not sure why
Fed and Sampras played at least four matches against each other. Advantage to Fed. (3 to 1)
Himself was his greatest rival. If he had as much consistency as Federer, he would have won even more than 14 majors. Also, if he enjoyed the sport more, he would have played longer and won even more.
Unlike Federer, Pete is very prone to losing to lesser players sometimes, but we all know if he put his mind into it, he will beat anyone that stands in his way.
Pete could have won 20+ slams if he was even close to be as dedicatedly consistent as Federer.
Unlike Federer, Pete is very prone to losing to lesser players sometimes, but we all know if he put his mind into it, he will beat anyone that stands in his way.
It seems that it's the usual Federer versus Sampras argument again. Federer is simply more consistent than Sampras over the course of their careers and at their peaks. One of the things of Federer's career is that his level of play is such that he almost never loses to inferior players. So you can often bank on Federer going deep into every tournament. Federer's won at a higher lifetime winning percentage, higher winning percentage during their respective peaks, won more tournaments, a higher percentage of tournaments won etc.
I think the one player that Sampras feared and he admitted it in his book was Stich. Stich had the big serve and volley with good groundies.
When he first started playing pro tennis the player Sampras feared was Michael Chang but obviously he didn't fear Chang much after he became the Sampras we know about.
it's not that Pete chose to be inconsistent; he just wasn't as good as Federer.
It's like saying "if Karlovic chose to hit BHs like Djokovic, he could've won 20+ slams"..
It's not that Pete wasn't good. Pete has ALL the tools to work with to win more slams. At his best, he is capable of blasting anybody off the court with his extremely risky and offensive game, but at his worst he could also lose to anyone at the same time. That's Pete's game, take all or nothing.