Sampras's performances in his last 6 French Open appearances

[Prisoner of Birth]

1997 - Aged 25 - 3rd Round
1998 - Aged 26 - 2nd Round
1999 - Aged 27 - 2nd Round
2000 - Aged 28 - 1st Round
2001 - Aged 29 - 2nd Round
2002 - Aged 30 - 1st Round

That's 5 wins and 6 losses. Shocking. For someone who was the best player of his generation, he sure did suck on Clay.

[cristiano]

5 wins more than Borg at the same age!

Sampras after 96 basically stopped playing in Paris. Of course he has a poor record anyway, but what he did in these years is not really relevant. Some people after a certain age retire, other players focus on some tournaments only.

[Nostradamus]

wherer are the Videos ?

[zagor]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

1997 - Aged 25 - 3rd Round
1998 - Aged 26 - 2nd Round
1999 - Aged 27 - 2nd Round
2000 - Aged 28 - 1st Round
2001 - Aged 29 - 2nd Round
2002 - Aged 30 - 1st Round

That's 5 wins and 6 losses. Shocking. For someone who was the best player of his generation, he sure did suck on Clay.

90s CC depth at work .

[90's Clay]

Pete's clay game took a dive when he hired Annacone.. Had his old coach Gullickson not died, Pete probably would have won a French Open title before it was all said and done. During his clay prime under Gullickson he made deep runs at the French usually going out to the eventual winner. By the late 90s, the clay court depth took a dive, and there would have been major openings for him to win 1-2.

For whatever reason by 1997, Pete gave up on the french.. Could have been the coach. Look at how well he played from 92-96 and how how much his level took a dive from 97-on

Annacone was not the coach to have if you are looking to achieve on clay.. (Look at Fed's clay level since hiring Annacone).. Its took a complete DUMP compared to where it was prior

[fed_rulz]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Pete's clay game took a dive when he hired Annacone.. Had his old coach Gullickson not died, Pete probably would have won a French Open title before it was all said and done. During his clay prime under Gullickson he made deep runs at the French usually going out to the eventual winner. By the late 90s, the clay court depth took a dive, and there would have been major openings for him to win 1-2.

For whatever reason by 1997, Pete gave up on the french.. Could have been the coach. Look at how well he played from 92-96 and how how much his level took a dive from 97-on

Annacone was not the coach to have if you are looking to achieve on clay.. (Look at Fed's clay level since hiring Annacone).. Its took a complete DUMP compared to where it was prior

yes, let's blame Pete's inadequacy and Federer's age on Annacone.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Pete's clay game took a dive when he hired Annacone.. Had his old coach Gullickson not died, Pete probably would have won a French Open title before it was all said and done. During his clay prime under Gullickson he made deep runs at the French usually going out to the eventual winner. By the late 90s, the clay court depth took a dive, and there would have been major openings for him to win 1-2.

For whatever reason by 1997, Pete gave up on the french.. Could have been the coach. Look at how well he played from 92-96 and how how much his level took a dive from 97-on

Annacone was not the coach to have if you are looking to achieve on clay.. (Look at Fed's clay level since hiring Annacone).. Its took a complete DUMP compared to where it was prior

Oh, I didn't know Coaches won Grand Slams. I always thought it was the players

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by fed_rulz

yes, let's blame Pete's inadequacy and Federer's age on Annacone.

Coaching has ALOT to do with it pal. Btw.. How many clay titles has Fed won since Annacone took over? A ton right??

Heck Fed has trouble even beating big slow clumsy bugger ISNER on clay in fact lost to to him. A lot of that is Annacone is not a coach really suited for success on clay.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Coaching has ALOT to do with it pal. Btw.. How many clay titles has Fed won since Annacone took over? A ton right??

Heck Fed has trouble even beating big slow clumsy bugger ISNER on clay in fact lost to to him. A lot of that is Annacone is not a coach really suited for success on clay.

Federer made the French Open final since Annacone took over, which is more than Sampras EVER managed under anybody. Anyway, this has nothing to do with Federer. Why bring Federer up? Insecure much?

Fact is, Sampras is incompetent on Clay for someone who is supposedly a GOAT-candidate. Actually, he's a total joke.

5 wins and 6 losses? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

And yes, it's all Annacone's fault. Maybe Annacone should have played the matches on Clay himself instead of Sampras? I'm betting the results wouldn't have looked too different considering Sampras barely made it past the 1st round, with the top seeding and all

[fed_rulz]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Federer made the French Open final since Annacone took over, which is more than Sampras EVER managed under anybody. Anyway, this has nothing to do with Federer. Why bring Federer up? Insecure much?

Fact is, Sampras is incompetent on Clay for someone who is supposedly a GOAT-candidate. Actually, he's a total joke.

5 wins and 6 losses? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

And yes, it's all Annacone's fault. Maybe Annacone should have played the matches on Clay himself instead of Sampras? I'm betting the results wouldn't have looked too different considering Sampras barely made it past the 1st round, with the top seeding and all

Federer wins more matches in 2011 RG than the last 6 yrs of Pete's run at RG? interesting... i hear Pete could've beaten Nadal at the RG finals too, IF only he had made the finals.

[fed_rulz]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Coaching has ALOT to do with it pal. Btw.. How many clay titles has Fed won since Annacone took over? A ton right??

Heck Fed has trouble even beating big slow clumsy bugger ISNER on clay in fact lost to to him. A lot of that is Annacone is not a coach really suited for success on clay.

I heard it was Annacone's fault that Isner took Nadal to 5 sets too?

[BTURNER]

I thought players hired and fired coaches as part of their responsibility to their own game, and future. Could be wrong on that. Sampras had the equipment to win RG, but not the temperament. Usually great S/V ers can manage some great wins over top ten clay courts in their prime years and even the odd one week clay court tittle, but two weeks is just too long for them to sustain momentum, if they get some in the first place. There is no evidence that Sampras was any different from McEnroe or Becker or Edberg. They all got some good runs in Paris, and all came up a match or two short. I do like his ground strokes for the surface though.

[ollinger]

Prisoner of birth, indeed!! From 1990 to 1998 Sampras had the fourth best record on clay of any player in the world, won the Italian Open, and at the French had wins against Courier and Brugera, both French champions. He also had some big wins on clay in Davis Cup. To conclude from a few years at the FO that he "sure did suck on clay" while ignoring the rest of the record is bizarre.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by ollinger

Prisoner of birth, indeed!! From 1990 to 1998 Sampras had the fourth best record on clay of any player in the world, won the Italian Open, and at the French had wins against Courier and Brugera, both French champions. He also had some big wins on clay in Davis Cup. To conclude from a few years at the FO that he "sure did suck on clay" while ignoring the rest of the record is bizarre.

4th best record ???? really ??????

On top of my head, here's a list of players who had a better record on clay in that period :

gomez
courier
bruguera
muster
kafelnikov
kuerten
moya
agassi
medevedev
berasategui
chang
corretja
rios
stich

he beat no one of good clay court calibre at the Italian Open when he won it ...

bruguera was just returning from a serious injury and in pretty bad form when pete beat him @ 96 RG

courier was on the way downhill and 96 was the final year where he posted half-decent results ... still a decent win

he did well @ the davis cup ... but that's about it ...

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by ollinger

Prisoner of birth, indeed!! From 1990 to 1998 Sampras had the fourth best record on clay of any player in the world

He made the French Open semifinal once. And never made the finals. And he was the 4th best?

[Carsomyr]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Coaching has ALOT to do with it pal. Btw.. How many clay titles has Fed won since Annacone took over? A ton right??

Heck Fed has trouble even beating big slow clumsy bugger ISNER on clay in fact lost to to him. A lot of that is Annacone is not a coach really suited for success on clay.

He's won Madrid and reached the FO final in 2011 and semi in 2012 under the tutelage of Annacone.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Coaching has ALOT to do with it pal. Btw.. How many clay titles has Fed won since Annacone took over? A ton right??

Heck Fed has trouble even beating big slow clumsy bugger ISNER on clay in fact lost to to him. A lot of that is Annacone is not a coach really suited for success on clay.

Annacone won the French Open?

[Tagg]

sampras gave up on roland garros after 97, he's admitted as much himself

go watch sampras from 92-96

he could play well on the red stuff, beating RG champions (or future RG champions) on it. davis cup 95 is probably his best (sustained) level on clay

his problem was that he did not have the patience, the consistency of groundstrokes, or the sense of control in his game (that he had on grass, carpets and hardcourts)

that is why sampras did not win RG, simple

also, it should be noted that surface homogenization has played a VERY strong part in federer and nadal's domination and consistency across surfaces

the surfaces of the 70s, 80s and 90s demanded adaption. today's surfaces don't

lastly, the career grand slam looks good on the resume, but look at where agassi stands compared to other all time greats

far behind sampras, connors and lendl. their records at slams, weeks at no 1, and titles won are too much

barely above mcenroe (who won only at 2 slams!)

appreciate sampras for what he is; one of the best on grass, hard and indoors in history

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by Tagg

lastly, the career grand slam looks good on the resume, but look at where agassi stands compared to other all time greats

far behind sampras, connors and lendl. their records at slams, weeks at no 1, and titles won are too much

barely above mcenroe (who won only at 2 slams!)

appreciate sampras for what he is; one of the best on grass, hard and indoors in history

I would argue that it doesn't even do much to pad a resume.

The career slam is merely the product of recent media hype--struggling to conjure up reasons for American fans to return to watching tennis.

[Tagg]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

I would argue that it doesn't even do much to pad a resume.

The career slam is merely the product of recent media hype--struggling to conjure up reasons for American fans to return to watching tennis.

the career slam was worth something when agassi did it, no doubt

and of course, because agassi played hard court tennis on clay and was not particularly good on the surface (those early FO finals and that Rome win are misleading)

he relied on his magnificent hand to eye co-ordination for those returns to win wimbledon 92, he wasn't a natural grass court player either

but it was worth something, purely because no one had done it in 30(?) years

edberg and courier came close

edberg with 2 AO, 2 WIM and 2 US, FO final

courier with 2 AO, 2 FO, WIM final, US final

but had edberg won it, would he then be above mcenroe, both having 7 slams?

however, in the context of a career overall, it means less

then of course, you have federer and nadal (and nearly djokovic) achieving it in the space of a few years

this is due to slowed down surfaces (or sped up in the case of clay), the same prevalent game style and the same players winning every tournament that matters

it still means something to win at every slam, but (nowadays) overall slam counts, weeks at no 1, and total titles won, those are the main deciders in tennis greatness