Did Pete Sampras Not Having a Rival Hurt His Career

[McEnroeisanartist]

Do you think Pete Sampras not having a rival hurt his career? Obviously, Federer has had Nadal has a GOAT candidate rival and Novak is almost at the level of Agassi as another rival.

Might Sampras have not been so burned out in 2000-2002, if he had a real rival, rather than trying to manufacture motivation.

Or do we not give enough credit to Federer loving competition so much?

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

If he had a rival who could have pushed him in terms of breaking the Slam record back then, he would have probably played on longer and been more motivated later in his career.

 

[90's Clay]

Sampras had plenty of rivals due to the complete polarization of the surfaces. Goran (Career long rival on grass), Agassi (Rival on all surfaces), Rafter (rival on hard courts). Becker (Early Rival on grass), Edberg (Early rival on hard courts), Chang (hard courts) Bruguera (clay), Courier (Clay and hards) etc.

Nowadays due to homogenization and lack of depth, top rivals are 2-4 guys. Before it was different. Conditions were different.. It was a different time

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

Do you think Pete Sampras not having a rival hurt his career? Obviously, Federer has had Nadal has a GOAT candidate rival and Novak is almost at the level of Agassi as another rival.

Might Sampras have not been so burned out in 2000-2002, if he had a real rival, rather than trying to manufacture motivation.

Or do we not give enough credit to Federer loving competition so much?

I think it definitely played a role. After winning Wimbledon 2000, Sampras got his goal of 13 slams and his biggest rival (Agassi) was sitting on 6 and was his age. Outside of Borg no one in the open era was on his level and he didn't have much to motivate him.

Fed has always had Nadal, a younger guy slowly gaining on his records, on his tail to keep him motivated to move that goal post.

But then again if Agassi had stayed a true contender to pete throughout the 90s, Pete might have won less slams in his own right, certainly his AO wins would have been in question if peak Agassi showed up for those events, so we can't know if he winds up with more or less.

 

[THESEXPISTOL]

Sampras had plenty of rivals due to the complete polarization of the surfaces. Goran (Career long rival on grass), Agassi (Rival on all surfaces), Rafter (rival on hard courts). Becker (Early Rival on grass), Edberg (Early rival on hard courts), Chang (hard courts) Bruguera (clay), Courier (Clay and hards) etc.

Nowadays due to homogenization and lack of depth, top rivals are 2-4 guys. Before it was different. Conditions were different.. It was a different time

Good insight!

 

[rodrigo_palacio88]

Sampras had plenty of rivals due to the complete polarization of the surfaces. Goran (Career long rival on grass), Agassi (Rival on all surfaces), Rafter (rival on hard courts). Becker (Early Rival on grass), Edberg (Early rival on hard courts), Chang (hard courts) Bruguera (clay), Courier (Clay and hards) etc.

Nowadays due to homogenization and lack of depth, top rivals are 2-4 guys. Before it was different. Conditions were different.. It was a different time

agassi was a headcase and with the exception of 1995 and late in his career he was in many problems incluiding drugs.

sampras never facec a guy like federer , nadal or even nole.

becker and edberg were 80s players , not of sampras`s generation

 

[conway]

Sampras had plenty of rivals due to the complete polarization of the surfaces. Goran (Career long rival on grass), Agassi (Rival on all surfaces), Rafter (rival on hard courts). Becker (Early Rival on grass), Edberg (Early rival on hard courts), Chang (hard courts) Bruguera (clay), Courier (Clay and hards) etc.

Nowadays due to homogenization and lack of depth, top rivals are 2-4 guys. Before it was different. Conditions were different.. It was a different time

He did not have a consistent year round rival though. Except for Agassi in 95, and yet Agassi putting his all into the year and playing his best tennis ever (1999 was his best year, but 1995 was his best tennis) still ended the year 2nd best to Sampras who was subpar due to personal crisis. That is what I think the OP means.

Yes I do think it might have hurt him. It would have raised his overall intensity a notch higher, and probably would have made him work harder to master clay and possibly win a French.

 

[90's Clay]

He did not have a consistent year round rival though. Except for Agassi in 95, and yet Agassi putting his all into the year and playing his best tennis ever (1999 was his best year, but 1995 was his best tennis) still ended the year 2nd best to Sampras who was subpar due to personal crisis. That is what I think the OP means.

Yes I do think it might have hurt him. It would have raised his overall intensity a notch higher, and probably would have made him work harder to master clay and possibly win a French.

I think not getting a coach that could help excel his clay game and put the focus on clay hurt him more after Gullickson died.


Agassi was never beating Pete at Wimbledon or Flushing anyways. Pete was just too good on those surfaces and even better when he saw Agassi across the net.

Pete got the best of Agassi more times than not even during Agassi's PEAK performance years like 95, 99, and some of 2001 at the USO.

 

[mtommer]

I suppose it depends upon the mindset, but often there is an ingrained arrogance associated with your top sports stars. That is a motivation in and of itself and each time you take the court and "dominate" you just keep feeding that "high" you get from, well, dominating. With a rival, that can shake this arrogance and self belief that you are the top. This can hurt more than help, depending on the individual. How many more might Federer have if Nadal were not so good which may seem like an obvious statement but being better than most but not as good as "Federer" (no. 1, GOAT, whomever and however you wish to state it) may have helped Fed. As it relates to Sampras, maybe Sampras actually did better without a rival. He may have always sought to improve for no other reason that to improve and do "unbelievable" things because he believed himself and himself alone capable of that level, and the belief of one's superiority is addicting.

 

[helloworld]

Do you think Pete Sampras not having a rival hurt his career? Obviously, Federer has had Nadal has a GOAT candidate rival and Novak is almost at the level of Agassi as another rival.

Might Sampras have not been so burned out in 2000-2002, if he had a real rival, rather than trying to manufacture motivation.

Or do we not give enough credit to Federer loving competition so much?

Sampras did have many rivals on various surfaces. The 90s was the era of surface specialization. However, we can all agree that none of his rival were anywhere close to him.