Why are people so high on Sampras?
- Thread starter The Guru
- Start date
Red Rick
Bionic Poster
Most of the 90's 1-3 Slam champs have career winning% in the range of dudes like Raonic, Nishikori, Ferrer, Tsonga or Berdych.
Who cares? Net game has been obsolete all the way back to 2003. His net game is absolutely dreadful and completely irrelevant. The only skilled S&Vers left are Federer and Karlovic, and they are past gen.
Darrell
Rookie
I had the privilege of watching Pete play when I was a teenager, all the way until his last match at the 2002 U.S. Open. I even saw him play two matches live at the U.S. Clay Court Championship back in 2002, when it was held here in Houston at the Westside Tennis Club, in which he beat Agassi in the semis and lost to Roddick in the final. I don't think there is a valid argument that can be made for Lendl, Connors, or Mac being greater.
Pete was an incredible player. Great footwork, great serve, great forehand (what I consider the greatest running forehand of all time), great volleys, and the best overhead ever. The one knock on Pete was his clay court game, which wasn't that great. Granted, he didn't have as dominant a stretch as Roger or Novak, but he is right behind those guys. He is definitely on my Mt. Rushmore, along with Fed, Nole, and Rafa.
Pete was an incredible player. Great footwork, great serve, great forehand (what I consider the greatest running forehand of all time), great volleys, and the best overhead ever. The one knock on Pete was his clay court game, which wasn't that great. Granted, he didn't have as dominant a stretch as Roger or Novak, but he is right behind those guys. He is definitely on my Mt. Rushmore, along with Fed, Nole, and Rafa.
True Fanerer
G.O.A.T.
I just realized that it was you that posted in my thread. Geez no wonder after looking at this piece of crap you created lol.
His groundstrokes were very error prone, including the forehand. Sampras return games were also incredibly on and off. He hit dazzling return shots only to miss badly for a long stretch. I think he is similar to Djokovic in one respect though. Sampras played the big points at his best. That's the sign of a true champion. Agassi talked about how Sampras played mediocre for a majority of the set, then played five points in succession masterfully.
At his volleying best, the greatest volleyer who ever played the game IMO. He had a nice touch but mostly survived return of serve scares with incredible athleticism. His backhand volley was unreal. It seemed that at his best, there wasn't any BH volley he couldn't do.
People tend to overrate his serve and underrate his volleying. It was better at it's peak than Henmans.. and Edberg.
Darrell
Rookie
Pete wasn't looking to hit groundstrokes all day long, and he certainly wasn't the greatest returner ever. However, he didn't need to be the greatest returner with the serve that he had. His opponents were already feeling the pressure knowing they would have to hold serve at all costs. But you better believe when it got to 4-5, 5-5, or 6-5, Pete was ready to turn up the pressure on his return game. All he needed was a single break each set. You're right, Pete played the big points very well.
Yes, his volleying was great till the end of 90s. He was the best at handling hard returns right to your feet. I remember Goran hitting many times and Pete could handle them
You need to hit solid groundstrokes to beat the golden trio at slams. Fed and Djoko took returning to new heights.
Also great volleying in 2000 US Open against Hewitt. He had bad matches like anyone, but when his volley was on you had to pass him or he won the point.
travlerajm
Talk Tennis Guru
Dissing Pete and saying Roger is better is no different than saying LeBron is better than Michael.
You can make arguments either way.
You can make arguments either way.
Dude, don't waste my time with this bs. Maybe because the competition was tougher, deeper, had more various styles, different surfaces and maybe because these guys could actually focus more when it mattered the most?
I told you to see things in context but you don't get it
Your comparisson is like comparing two students from 2 different math classes:
Student A is the best student in his math class because he is the only one getting the grade C regularly, while everybody else is getting a D or worse
Student B is the 5th best student in his class because even though he gets the grade B mostly, 4 other students get the grade A
So in your logic: Student A > Student B lol
crackerspreaded
New User
Sampras has no possible case to be over any of Federer, Nadal, or Djokovic at this point.
Borg is an interesting case. I personally feel Borg should be higher as his dominance of the polar opposites of clay and grass is unmatched in tennis history by any mean, even Federer, Laver, and Djokovic do not even come close in that regard, and far more impressive than anything Sampras ever did. Dominating at Wimbledon and the U.S Open is something many of the greats have done, and while impressive, not infinitely hard for a great who prefers faster courts. I understand those who side with Sampras though, as he has many numericals edges on Borg.
Borg is an interesting case. I personally feel Borg should be higher as his dominance of the polar opposites of clay and grass is unmatched in tennis history by any mean, even Federer, Laver, and Djokovic do not even come close in that regard, and far more impressive than anything Sampras ever did. Dominating at Wimbledon and the U.S Open is something many of the greats have done, and while impressive, not infinitely hard for a great who prefers faster courts. I understand those who side with Sampras though, as he has many numericals edges on Borg.
Why don't we just turn tennis into a video game? No opponent, no court even. You just swing a 350g stylus at a green screen until you make an unforced error. Last man standing wins a trophy.
That's where we are going.
travlerajm
Talk Tennis Guru
It ain’t about numericals for me. I’ve watched tennis since the early 80’s. Watched the torch pass from Borg, to Mac, to Lendl, to Becker, to Edberg, to Courier, to Sampras, to various weak era fillers, to Federer, to Nadal, to Djokovic.
Of all of these guys I watched, Pete was the best I ever saw.
BlueB
Legend
People WIN the trophies, they are not given. Just a reminder...
Also, 7 of the last 9 Wimbledons were won by Nole and Fed, the 2 players with the most net points played for the duration of the turnament.
Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk
crackerspreaded
New User
Well I respect your opinion. I dont feel the same way.
Sampras on a fast court could be the best ever level wise, up with Federer or Laver. However on slower courts he is lacking relative to other greats. Very weak on clay, much weaker than even Nadal indoors. Slower hard courts, excellent the odd time, usually pretty good, but far from dominant.
He also lacks longevity compared to Laver, Gonzales, Fed, Djokovic, Nadal, Connors, Agassi, everyone except for Borg basically.
And he wasnt as dominant as he could be, never having a 3 slam year even in a pretty weak era with no consistent rival, due to for whatever reason not delivering his best at 1 or 2 of his 3 favorite majors each year during his peak of 93-97.
Just all around he falls short.
And that's why people regard him so highly. He wouldn't win a slam today, because they are ALL so painfully slow .. but for those who appreciate attacking fast court tennis with flair, Sampras is "up there with Federer or Laver".
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
crackerspreaded
New User
Fair enough. I am fine with those who rank by level only, just that you cant really have a serious debate about that as it is so subjective.
I go mainly by careers and achievments myself, and in that way, I find him possibly even behind Borg despite having more slams, as Borg dominating the two most opposite surfaces of tennis at the time of the most polarized and real playing condition is so amazing. That plus Borg won 11 slams at the time of 3 slams really, since Australia wasnt even a real slam back then, and nobody played, and retiring at only 25. So the 11 to 14 isnt as big a difference as it sounds in context.
Cashman
Hall of Fame
This is it, really. In the last 20 years we have started to equate 'dominance' with 'winning everything, everywhere' - hence the big statistical markers.
Sampras never won everything everywhere. But when he played on grass or fast hardcourt - boy, it was like he was playing a different sport to everyone else. Time after time he would cruise along for literally 80% of the match, lazily turn it on for five minutes to get the break he needed to sew up a set, then go back to cruising for another 8 or 9 games.
It's hard to describe the impression this made on people who watched him do it week-in, week-out for almost a decade. To watch a guy who, match after match, didn't care about losing points or games (or even sometimes breaks and sets) because he knew he could just grab them back in the blink of an eye whenever he felt like it was not only brutal but... weird.
The way he casually just did enough to win a match, casually just did enough to win a title - heck, casually just did enough to retain the #1 ranking - gave him such an aura of being completely untested.
Sampras may not have achieved as much as other players. But I've never seen a player who came close to achieving what he did, whilst simultaneously giving off the impression that he was capable of so much more had it been required. I think that is what makes him so tantilising.
I'm not going to argue he was greater than X or Y player, but I think he is a good example of why comparing great players out of their times is so difficult. Most players who are great, are great in their own unique way.
Last edited:
BGod
G.O.A.T.
Sampras had Edberg, Agassi, Ivanisevic, Becker and Courier.
Fed certainly didn't stand in Nadal's way at the USO and assuming Nadal wins 3 Wimbledons in a row?
The WTF & Miami (Key Biscayne) received more publicity and paid more per match/set.
The Grand Slam Cup paid obscene amounts although was not part of the official tour.
In any case Sampras prioritised those 3 over the Aussie Open.
travlerajm
Talk Tennis Guru
If you are giving Borg a pass for not caring about the AO and retiring at 25, then how come Sampras doesn’t get a pass for not caring about the AO and semi-retiring at 25?
We don't know that until someone bring out a time machine. I can easily imagine him getting passed at the net and Federer holding his serve with ease. Just as I can having him lock down Fed and forcing tiebreaks.
crackerspreaded
New User
Sampras semi retired at 25? Not sure what you mean by that. He won atleast 1 slam every year until 2000, the year he turned 29. He would have ended his 7th straight year at #1 in 1999 without his injury at the U.S Open, the year he turned 28.
The only reason I give Borg a pass at the AO is NOBODY cared about the Australian Open back then, except Australian players. It is a known fact of that period.
Sampras won the Australian Open twice, and wins it four times if he didnt fall to Agassi in tough matches, so he definitely cared about the Australian Open.
travlerajm
Talk Tennis Guru
Sampras coasted most of the season those last few years at #1, and only cranked up his training intensity when Wimbledon or the US Open or the year-end bragging rights were on the line. I think that’s partly why he kept getting injured - it’s harder on the body to suddenly ramp up intensity than if your body is accustomed to it year round.
crackerspreaded
New User
OK fair enough.
Those who watched him play actually do know that.
I enjoyed the Wimbledon final this year simply for effort. The competition itself was exciting, but the tennis was a grind.
Sampras didn't grind, ever.
Strangely enough, if Thomas Muster were born 20 years later, I think all the young kids would be running around saying he is the GOAT.
C
Chadalina
Guest
Agassi wasnt on meth, he was jucing. Guy couldnt finish a 2 out of 3 set match then able to play 5-6 hours. Rios called him out at the AO, he ran off saying Jaden was kidnapped lol
Meth doesnt make you more fit, it does the opposite.
Early sampras was on of the greatest all court players of all time, his first us open was some of the best tennis in the history of the sport
crackerspreaded
New User
I think Nadal would be an awful opponent for Muster. Nadal is like a much better version of Muster. Nadal never has trouble with pure baseline grinders who cant overpower him. Apart from Djokovic to some degree, but Djokovic has both a clearly superior serve/return combination (which Muster doesnt) and can outhit him the ground with flatter strokes and a stronger backhand, which again does not apply to Muster at all.
travlerajm
Talk Tennis Guru
Muster always seemed one-dimensional. When he played against Sampras I always felt sorry for him out there because of the defeated look on his face from the start of the match.
Yes, impossible to know how much that affected him .. but I wonder if he looks at how much the game is tailored to the grinders of today and is jealous.
He lives just up the road from me, so if I run into him and ask and report back. Still very fit and almost has an Aussie accent!
He lives just up the road from me, so if I run into him and ask and report back. Still very fit and almost has an Aussie accent!
crackerspreaded
New User
And his record against serve and volley players, even on his beloved clay, is telling to his limitations. This is amazing to realize, but Edberg totally owns Muster even on clay. And he has lost to Rafter and Stich during his peak period (94-96) at Roland Garros. He lost to Sampras at the French in a non prime year for both (91). He didnt have the accuracy to hit quality passing shots vs any attacking player. Any limitations Nadal has to a degree, just multiply them many times over for Muster. Muster in everyway is a poor mans Nadal.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
Sampras was perfectly capable of grinding when he felt he really had to. Just not consistently. His famous five-set matches against Courier, Corretja, Bruguera, Chesnokov attest to that.
travlerajm
Talk Tennis Guru
I think his accuracy was fine, but he was unable to play from on top of the baseline taking the ball on the rise, which is required against serve-and-volleyers.
That’s why I think people tend to over-rate how well Nadal would fare against Sampras.
crackerspreaded
New User
Nadal vs Sampras? Well obviously he would stand more chances if they played today on the tragically slowed down courts than in Sampras's day of faster conditions. Although in fairness to Nadal we cant tell for sure how he would adapt for different conditions, Nadal has his weaknesses but he is no 90s clay courter who gives up on a challenge ever and starts skipping Wimbledon after a couple early losses. He is a tough little bugger, and one of the most determined fighters ever.
I tend to think even today with the slower conditions Nadal would have a hard time against Sampras on non clay surfaces. I think there is a good chance he would find him a harder opponent than Federer just due to the match up elements, and even his success and head to head with Federer is overrated by tons of people who forget the disproportion to how many matches they played on clay through the years. In 90s conditions a really tough time, probably almost no shot vs Sampras at Wimbledon, U.S Open, or the YEC.
By grind, I meant the baseline bot style of play. He certainly played some long matches but most of those he seemed to tune in and out of.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
Sampras sure never grinded as a default strategy at any point. I was just saying he could generally hold his own at the baseline when he focused on it, zoned in you can say. Such a unique mental disposition, no one else could ever so routinely alternate between careless and caring.
crackerspreaded
New User
People do forget he did quite well vs Agassi in baseline exchanges. And Agassi is one of the best baseliners and groundstrokers ever, the same guy who could hang with peak Federer from the back court at 34/35. Obviously Sampras doesnt have the best overall baseline game ever, that wasnt the hallmark of his overall attacking style, but his ground game was a lot better than some people seem to think/remember. His forehand was devastating, and when he was motivated he ran super well and fast. His backhand wasnt regularly lethal but he protected it well, and he had a lot of variety off it, while able to capatilize when he got openings for winners.
PMChambers
Hall of Fame
Late 80s to late 90s
AO - Med - Slow
FO - Slow
Wim - Fast
USO - V. Fast to Fast {it changed very slick to rough}
All clay Slow, IW & MI Med-Slow and Med.
Carpet had few big $ comps.
So US & Wim has slowed now to Med and AO sped to Med - Fast. ATP final has been at time in 90s VFast, now Med {this needs checking going from memory O2}.
Poly cancels a lot of surface variance and environmental factors more so than surface texture.
Sampras didn't win many super 7 / 9 Masters because a lot of them where and still are not fast. Sampras is the greatest player on Fast surfaces in my view.
I agree with what you're saying, but I don't think I'm fully explaining the style I'm referring to.
I thought Sampras had great groundstrokes in the last throws off when you still had to hit through the ball to generate power.
By grinder, I mean someone who parks themself at the baseline and just wears the opponent down.
I don't believe I ever saw him try to win a match like that.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
I thought Sampras had great groundstrokes in the last throws off when you still had to hit through the ball to generate power.
By grinder, I mean someone who parks themself at the baseline and just wears the opponent down.
I don't believe I ever saw him try to win a match like that.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
mxmx
Hall of Fame
Because they had no one to play against but each other.
mxmx
Hall of Fame
Wth. Did you ever watch Korda play? I didn't like him but he was a great player.
travlerajm
Talk Tennis Guru
This sums up the current state of tennis.
I don’t buy all this. Maybe sometimes he wanted it to look that way, but every article you read about Sampras during his career was about how he analyzes EVERYTHING, and that there is nothing in his life apart from tennis. There was nothing "casual" about him. He even thought you couldn’t have friends on tour because that could be a weakness when you meet them on court. Everything was about total success. Don’t get fooled by his hanging shoulders or tongue.
But the main reason why I don’t believe that: It didn’t really happen that way. He couldn’t casually turn matches around, or otherwise he wouldn’t have that much losses against lesser players in ANY year of his career. You cannot look "untested" while you lose 15 times per year. Just look at the results, and you will see he was nowhere near the aura of Nadal and Djokovic in that regard. At the contrary, he was a great front-runner, but normally you could very early see when it wasn’t his day.
Also the matches had to be played in his comfort zone. If an opponent was able to engage him in baseline rallyes you could always wait for the error. Even I as a fan back then and also the commentators saw it as almost self-evident: "Sampras has to come forward." That wouldn’t work today, on any court, not even the fastest (mainly because of the racquets).
Red Rick
Bionic Poster
They had, they just didn't gift Slams to dudes like Nishikori, Tsonga, Raonic, Berdych, Ferrer, or Thiem (yet), all 6 of which have stats that are up there with some of the Slam champions from the 90s.
Also, 2 of the 1 Slam champions this decade have by far the highest stats for single Slam champions with Del Potro and Roddick.
The bar for Slam champions was raised when Fed started dominating, and it will fall down incredibly hard when the Big 3 crumble completely. Now where the current Big 3 would be compared to their competition from before, noone can say
As if that's not enough of a challenge.
