Sampras' rivals. Who beat him?
- Thread starter GS
- Start date
Tilden1893
New User
If we go by just grass...
Ready for this one?
Alex Corretja! 1-0
AND it was best of 5
AND the match WAS 5 sets!
Ready for this one?
Alex Corretja! 1-0
AND it was best of 5
AND the match WAS 5 sets!
Ah, Pete didn't mention this in his book! (I guess he didn't consider him a rival.)
But, there's one other guy who beat Pete in singles---Pete won 3 matches, but this guy won 4.
Kuerten came close---Pete beat him twice, and Guga beat him once. Ferreira came close, too---Pete beat him 7 times against Wayne's 6 wins.
World Beater
Hall of Fame
Marat Safin.
4-3
4-3
Mustard
Bionic Poster
There's more than 5, though.
1. Sergi Bruguera (2-3)
2. Michael Stich (4-5)
3. Richard Krajicek (4-6)
4. Roger Federer (0-1)
5. Lleyton Hewitt (4-5)
6. Marat Safin (3-4)
7. Leander Paes (0-1)
There's also, looking at my notes.
Derrick Rostagno (1-2)
Jay Berger (0-1)
Christo Van Rensburg (1-2)
Yannick Noah (0-1)
Paul Haarhuis (1-3)
Gilbert Schaller (0-1)
Christian Saceanu (0-1)
Max Mirnyi (1-2)
George Bastl (0-1)
Andy Roddick (1-2)
Tilden1893
New User
Rostagno's was at the Big W in 1991, IIRC.
Tilden1893
New User
One of Rostagno wins was @ the big W of 1991, IIRC!
BrooklynNY
Hall of Fame
Also, since its the topic of rivals, I would think one would need to play more than 3 times to qualify as any sort of rivalry, for seems like it it's a fair number because if you play 3 times, someone doesn't have a chance to level it at 2-2.
I would include Hewitt, and not include Roddick, by that standard.
Also, you'd have to discount any 1-0 records, because they do not qualify as a rival.
Federer was Pete's rival in the same way that Paul Annacone was.
I would include Hewitt, and not include Roddick, by that standard.
Also, you'd have to discount any 1-0 records, because they do not qualify as a rival.
Federer was Pete's rival in the same way that Paul Annacone was.
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.
These are the guys that Pete considered to be his rivals.
Last edited:
Mustard
Bionic Poster
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)
Last edited:
1
1970CRBase
Guest
Miloslav Mecir has a winning H2H against Pete. :mrgreen:
L
Laurie
Guest
Because Agassi was discussed at length throughout the book, he wanted to talk about his other rivals and their strengths and weaknesses.
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?
It still count as a win. Especially at the grand slam when the loser happens to be a defending champion.
L
Laurie
Guest
I put that match on youtube back in 2010. That really was a mauling, no other way to describe it :twisted:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmbervegakA
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
for sure. sampras demolished henman that day
the goatee look from the fatigue/year end no 1 chasing is hilarious, too
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
Legend
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
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
Hall of Fame
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.
L
Laurie
Guest
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.
Fed and Sampras played at least four matches against each other. Advantage to Fed. (3 to 1)
abmk
Bionic Poster
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 ...
helloworld
Hall of Fame
Unlike Federer, Pete is very prone to losing to lesser players sometimes, but we all know if he put his mind into it, he will beat anyone that stands in his way.
helloworld
Hall of Fame
Pete could have won 20+ slams if he was even close to be as dedicatedly consistent as Federer.
True. And that's why in 2009 Pete said Roger is a greater player than him.
it's not that Pete chose to be inconsistent; he just wasn't as good as Federer.
It's like saying "if Karlovic chose to hit BHs like Djokovic, he could've won 20+ slams"..
so tell us why he didn't put his mind to defeat Gilbert Schaller at RG? or his arch-rival Agassi at the AO?
pc1
G.O.A.T.
It seems that it's the usual Federer versus Sampras argument again. Federer is simply more consistent than Sampras over the course of their careers and at their peaks. One of the things of Federer's career is that his level of play is such that he almost never loses to inferior players. So you can often bank on Federer going deep into every tournament. Federer's won at a higher lifetime winning percentage, higher winning percentage during their respective peaks, won more tournaments, a higher percentage of tournaments won etc.
I think the one player that Sampras feared and he admitted it in his book was Stich. Stich had the big serve and volley with good groundies.
When he first started playing pro tennis the player Sampras feared was Michael Chang but obviously he didn't fear Chang much after he became the Sampras we know about.
I think the one player that Sampras feared and he admitted it in his book was Stich. Stich had the big serve and volley with good groundies.
When he first started playing pro tennis the player Sampras feared was Michael Chang but obviously he didn't fear Chang much after he became the Sampras we know about.
90's Clay
Banned
Its easier to be more consistent these days ( I think even Fed would agree with that deep down.).. IMO. In the 90s you almost HAD to play a higher risk game, which could cause you to be more prone to upsets. Then you take court specialists into account in an era like the 80s and 90s.. We have already seen 3 different guys just in the last 5 years alone win 3 slams in one year.
Prior to that less then handful managed that in 40 years.
Last edited:
helloworld
Hall of Fame
It's not that Pete wasn't good. Pete has ALL the tools to work with to win more slams. At his best, he is capable of blasting anybody off the court with his extremely risky and offensive game, but at his worst he could also lose to anyone at the same time. That's Pete's game, take all or nothing.
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
Exactly. It is the same as comparing Serena to Graf. Serena has more losses even in her best years since her game is higher risk and can go off more easily, but her absolute highest level is higher than Graf on all but clay, just like Sampras's absolute highest level is higher than Federer on all medium to fast courts, it just can go off alot more easily.
Similar threads
