Sampras at age 29-30

[tennisaddict]

I wanted to analyse Sampras's performance when he was 29-30 in relation to Federer's performance post year 2009.

It is mindboggling to see the kind of losses Sampras has had during these years. Sampras fans make it as though that but for clay he was god and also in clay , he was very competitive pre-1996. How can a grass and hard court god suffer so many losses when not even crossing 30 ?

I was seeing the calibre of players and the rankings of players over the top 30 whom Sampras lost to when he was age 29-30

Total 2002 win-loss : 27-17, Losses outside top 30 : 11

Paul-Henri Mathieu (FRA) Ranking 85 - 2002 Long Island
Wayne Arthurs (AUS) Ranking 70 - 2002 Cincinnati
George Bastl (SUI) Ranking 145 - 2002 Wimbledon
Nicolas Kiefer (GER) Ranking 66 - 2002 Halle
Andrea Gaudenzi (ITA) Ranking 69 - 2002 French
Nicolas Escude (FRA) Ranking 30 - 2002 Dusseldorf
Max Mirnyi (BLR) Ranking 39 - 2002 Hamburg
Felix Mantilla (ESP) Ranking 45 - 2002 Rome
Fernando Gonzalez (CHI) Ranking 62 - 2002 Miami
Wayne Ferreira (RSA) Ranking 48 - 2002 Scottsdale
Todd Martin (USA) Ranking 57 - 2002 Adelaide

Total 2001 win-loss : 35-16, No of Losses outside top 30 -9

Max Mirnyi (BLR) - Ranked 53 - 2001 Germany
Alberto Martin (ESP) - Ranked 38 - 2001 Cincinnati
Galo Blanco (ESP) - Ranked 76 - 2001 French
Alex Calatrava (ESP) -Ranked 50 - 2001 Hamburg
Harel Levy (ISR) -Ranked 54 - 2001 Rome
Andy Roddick (USA) -ranked 119 - 2001 Miami
Andrew Ilie (AUS) - ranked 43 - 2001 Scottsdale
Chris Woodruff (USA) - ranked 96 - 2001 Memphis
Todd Martin (USA) - ranked 54 - 2001 AO

How many of you have heard of Andrew Ilie , Chris Woodruff, Alex Calatrava ?

Will Federer have these kind of losses in his last 2 years ?

[Prisoner of Birth]

That's pretty bad. I can't see Federer doing that bad until 2016.

[Brett UK]

Interesting but to give sampras some credit he still pulled out a us open in 02, so although his level fell away, he did take a grand slam when the opportunity was there. Well worth the humbling losses.

[tennisaddict]

Originally Posted by Brett UK

Interesting but to give sampras some credit he still pulled out a us open in 02, so although his level fell away, he did take a grand slam when the opportunity was there. Well worth the humbling losses.

while i like to give credit to Sampras for his wins over Haas and Roddick in 2002 USO, one would have to understand Agassi played second on the super saturday against Hewitt in an extremely tight 4 setter while Sampras lucked out playing against Sjeng Schalken in a straight 3 setter boring serve fest with 0 rallies.

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by tennisaddict

while i like to give credit to Sampras for his wins over Haas and Roddick in 2002 USO, one would have to understand Agassi played second on the super saturday against Hewitt in an extremely tight 4 setter while Sampras lucked out playing against Sjeng Schalken in a straight 3 setter boring serve fest with 0 rallies.

What does that matter.. Sampras had DESTROYED Agassi at the USO his entire career. (Meanwhile Fed needing 5 sets to beat an ailing OLD Agassi)

Andre couldn't beat pete at the USO if you gave him a 2 set lead

[90's Clay]

Yawn.


Sampras had already broken the record by 29 year of age, and no one was around him in the slam count or even CLOSE overall to what he accomplished.

Different scenario with Roger.. Rafa was breathing down his neck for quite a while and DESTROYED him on the big stage on all surface more times then not. He was breathing down his neck in terms of legacy so the drive was there for Roger to continue trying to keep the record out of reach.

Pete had Andre but Pete got the best of Andre more then vice versa when it matter and overall in the h2h count. Rafa has been around pushing Rog to the limit for quite a few years now (with only injuries stopping Rafa from achieving more). Pete had systematically silenced all his main rivals time and time again on the big stage.



Fed's more motivated now then Pete was (mainly after he got married in 2000) but I think Fed HAD to be motivated. Rafa breathing down his neck.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Yawn.


Sampras had already broken the record by 29 year of age, and no one was around him in the slam count or even CLOSE overall to what he accomplished.

Different scenario with Roger.. Rafa was breathing down his neck for quite a while and DESTROYED him on the big stage on all surface more times then not. He was breathing down his neck in terms of legacy so the drive was there for Roger to continue trying to keep the record out of reach.

Pete had Andre but Pete got the best of Andre more then vice versa when it matter and overall in the h2h count. Rafa has been around pushing Rog to the limit for quite a few years now (with only injuries stopping Rafa from achieving more). Pete had systematically silenced all his main rivals time and time again on the big stage.

So basically Pete Sampras sucked despite playing in a weak era with no real competition. Got it

[Blocker]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

So basically Pete Sampras sucked despite playing in a weak era with no real competition. Got it

You should get it. In Sampras' last 2 years, he had achieved what he wanted to do, and that is hold the most slams and the most consecutive years as year ending number 1. He achieved that but he knew he had one left in him and he played until he won that last slam.

Now compare that to Federer, who is trying to keep 2 other potential GOAt candidates at bay plus he wants to play in Rio 2016 so he has to keep his game and fitness at a peak level for some time to come yet. He's probably shitting himself about the prospect of not winning singles gold.

[axel89]

lol 90s clay has been quoted so many times

[smoledman]

Originally Posted by axel89

lol 90s clay has been quoted so many times

It's because he's a top 5 troll on this board along with Rafa2005 and Clarky.

[Hitman]

Another Sampras bashing thread? Haven't there been enough of these during the off season?

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Why can't your boy beat his main rival for 5 years at a slam?

Talk about priceless.. I thought your boy was the HANDS DOWN GOAT? At least Pete could beat his rivals on the big stage. Your boy FLOPS like a fish out of water

Because Nadal is the worst possible match-up to Federer, 5 years younger, and a better player than even Sampras.

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Because Nadal is the worst possible match-up to Federer, 5 years younger, and a better player than even Sampras.

here we go with that "matchup issue" again... ROFLMAO.. Talk about priceless

If your boy is supposedly the greatest ever.. Why should that matter?

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

here we go with that "matchup issue" again... ROFLMAO.. Talk about priceless

Hey, Kracijek? He whupped Sampras in straights at Wimbledon, didn't he? And what's their career record again? And lest I forget, Federer is 1-0 against Sampras. So much for being "dominant against every player"

[Goosehead]

yes, sampras went 'el crappo' by this time.

[smoledman]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Yawn.


Sampras had already broken the record by 29 year of age, and no one was around him in the slam count or even CLOSE overall to what he accomplished.

Different scenario with Roger.. Rafa was breathing down his neck for quite a while and DESTROYED him on the big stage on all surface more times then not. He was breathing down his neck in terms of legacy so the drive was there for Roger to continue trying to keep the record out of reach.

Pete had Andre but Pete got the best of Andre more then vice versa when it matter and overall in the h2h count. Rafa has been around pushing Rog to the limit for quite a few years now (with only injuries stopping Rafa from achieving more). Pete had systematically silenced all his main rivals time and time again on the big stage.

Fed's more motivated now then Pete was (mainly after he got married in 2000) but I think Fed HAD to be motivated. Rafa breathing down his neck.

How come Pete could only win 11 Masters titles?

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by smoledman

How come Pete could only win 11 Masters titles?

Because he was a slam guy? Peaking for what was important? Who cares why.. Pete was the best of his era bar none. NO ONE came close. A few missed masters titles won't change that

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Because he was a slam guy? Peaking for what was important? Who cares why.. Pete was the best of his era bar none. NO ONE came close. A few missed masters titles won't change that

And why didn't he win the French Open? Because he was a non-Clay Slam guy?

[forzamilan90]

Originally Posted by smoledman

How come Pete could only win 11 Masters titles?

or end up with same amount of titles as Borg who retired mid twenties?

[Towser83]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Yawn.


Sampras had already broken the record by 29 year of age, and no one was around him in the slam count or even CLOSE overall to what he accomplished.

Different scenario with Roger.. Rafa was breathing down his neck for quite a while and DESTROYED him on the big stage on all surface more times then not. He was breathing down his neck in terms of legacy so the drive was there for Roger to continue trying to keep the record out of reach.

Pete had Andre but Pete got the best of Andre more then vice versa when it matter and overall in the h2h count. Rafa has been around pushing Rog to the limit for quite a few years now (with only injuries stopping Rafa from achieving more). Pete had systematically silenced all his main rivals time and time again on the big stage.



Fed's more motivated now then Pete was (mainly after he got married in 2000) but I think Fed HAD to be motivated. Rafa breathing down his neck.

I like how you highlighted the word destroyed by capatalising it, but apparently you have an odd definition of it. The only times Nadal has destroyed Federer are RG 2008 and Miami 2011 and maybe 2004. Even something like MC 2008 (7-5 7-5) is a fairly comfortable win but not a destruction.

I do agree Sampras had a lack of motivation though, but I think even if Federer had no Nadal to deal with, I think he'd still be motivated to deal with the youngsters like Djokovic and Murray. I don't think Federer has tired of the feeling of competing and winning titles. In the 90s the world of tennis was different, it's become insane these days, where the top guys must be playing every evernt and in the semis/finals all the time or something is wrong and they are "finished". There is ever more pressure to win and break records these days.