View Single Post
Old 02-09-2013, 06:20 PM   #21
abmk's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: U.S
Posts: 15,583

Originally Posted by 90's Clay View Post
Pete was not in his prime in 2001. He went 35-16 for the year with no titles at all. Does that sound like someone still in his prime after they accomplished what Pete had? Jeesh. Fed 4 years from his prime? ROFLMAO. He was 2-3 years from his prime by then. Probably 2 years. As he really started his ascent in 2003.

Pete was already a good 3 years or so past his prime by 2001. Maybe 4. In terms of his real big year around high level, Pete's last year was 1997 or so. Had a down year in '98, came back and looked awesome in 1999 Wimbledon and the YEC but was injured through most of the year and missed the USO and I believe the AO as well.

From 2000-on his prime was clearly over and pretty much already had a foot out the door. Just hanging on to win one more slam

Pete's prime as a player was probably 1993-1998 and maybe 1999. Anything after that... No way
sampras was still playing well in 2000 ... played well vs agassi @ the AO even though he lost, won wimbledon and reached the finals of the USO - beating his nemesis krajicek (incl a great comeback in the 2nd set breaker ) and then winning in straights ( although it was a competitive match ) vs hewitt
abmk is offline   Reply With Quote