Sampras' rivals. Who beat him?

[GS]

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.

[Laurie]

Originally Posted by GS

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.

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.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by GS

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)

Miloslav Mecir has a winning H2H against Pete.

[Laurie]

Originally Posted by Mustard

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)

Because Agassi was discussed at length throughout the book, he wanted to talk about his other rivals and their strengths and weaknesses.

[Tagg]

Originally Posted by Laurie

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.

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?

[TMF]

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.

[Tagg]

Originally Posted by TMF

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

[GS]

Years ago, when Pete was still attending high school in L.A., he needed a match to keep him tough, so he played a friend of mine, a top player at nearby Pepperdine U. Pete beat him pretty easily.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Tagg

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

It still count as a win. Especially at the grand slam when the loser happens to be a defending champion.

[robow7]

So,
Nadal is to Fed, as _______ is to Pete?

Ummm?

[Laurie]

Originally Posted by Tagg

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?

I put that match on youtube back in 2010. That really was a mauling, no other way to describe it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmbervegakA

[Tagg]

Originally Posted by TMF

It still count as a win. Especially at the grand slam when the loser happens to be a defending champion.

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

Originally Posted by Laurie

I put that match on youtube back in 2010. That really was a mauling, no other way to describe it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmbervegakA

for sure. sampras demolished henman that day

the goatee look from the fatigue/year end no 1 chasing is hilarious, too

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Tagg

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.

[Tagg]

Originally Posted by TMF

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.

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

[Kalin]

From all i remember, it was Krajicek who gave Pete the most trouble and the record seems to confirm this. I also remember one of Pete's wins vs. Krajicek at the US Open and even then it was obvious how difficult a match-up it was for Sampras... Krajicek was a couple of points away from a 2-set lead.

Of course, at his best Krajicek was a monster to play against- huge serve, incredible net coverage and overall competent game. Pity he was often injured and never seemed to reach his max potential. Seems like a common theme for the really big guys in tennis

[McEnroeisanartist]

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.

[Laurie]

Originally Posted by McEnroeisanartist

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 somewhat agree with you. I think it is unexplainable to win a major tournament and be fit and healthy and then stop playing. Sure he could have taken 6 months off and came back refreshed. It will also explain why he was playing so many exhibitions against younger men between 2006 and 2011. He won't say but I think deep down he must feel he made a mistake retiring at that stage.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Tagg

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)

[abmk]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Fed and Sampras played at least four matches against each other. Advantage to Fed. (3 to 1)

no, they didn't. They just played one match - on centre court @ wimbledon in 2001


exos these days where most players clown around don't count ...