Originally Posted by Mustard
Even if Sampras had gotten past Federer, I don't think he'd have won the title, because he was playing below his usual Wimbledon standard in 2001. Henman or Ivanisevic would have taken him out.
Originally Posted by sonicare
Sampras was playing at his absolute peak. Go look at his serve stats. He was a 4 time defending champion. It is just that a baby fed in his diapers was too good for a peak sampras. deal with it.
Sampras was losing to a lot of players in those days and he was clearly in decline. Check his record out.
ATP Tour career earnings
Year Majors ATP wins Total wins Earnings ($) Money list rank
1997 2 6 8 6,498,311 1
1998 1 3 4 3,931,497 1
1999 1 4 5 2,816,406 2
2000 1 1 2 2,254,598 5
2001 0 0 0 994,331 11
2002 1 0 1 1,222,999 12
Career 14 50 64 43,280,489
As you can see Sampras won zero tournaments that year 2001 and his won-lost record was 35-16. Not nearly up to Sampras standards.
The next year he lost to Bastl in the second round at Wimbledon. It was incredible how he won the US Open in 2002 when he looked totally washed up. Even with the US Open win in 2002 his record was only 27-17! That means he barely won more than half his matches going into the US Open that year 2002.