Do you think the player that passes Sampras record will keep playing for LONG time?

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by THERAFA, Apr 11, 2009.


    THERAFA Banned

    Feb 24, 2009
    Once a player passes Sampras' record do you think they'll keep playing for as long as physically possible to try and get as bigger lead as they can, even if it means going well past their prime and playing with regular injuries? I guess playing till they are limping (much like Agassi) is what I'm thinking of. Also, I wonder if Sampras regrets retiring when he did, since he probably could have snuck some more Wimbledons (he could have stopped playing Aust Open and French Open and just played US Open/Wimbledon). Nalbandian v Hewitt Wimbledon Final says it all.
  2. GameSampras

    GameSampras Banned

    Nov 24, 2008
    Prolly not. If say Roger breaks the record I doubt he will continue to play until his 30s like he said before. He prolly could retire the season ater he does. I wouldnt doubt it.

    Im sure Pete probably regrets not grabbing just a few more slams. 2-3 more anyways. I think it would have been safe to say his record probably wouldnt ever be broke by another player. I think he could have managed another USO anyways. Had he kept playing. But what happened, happened. There were a few slams he didnt play because he was injured. He got injured prior to the 99 USO. The way he was playing Wimbeldon and post wimbeldon in 99 , I would say he would have grabbed that USO as well.

    Roger is close. He needs 2 more, but it wont be easy
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2009
  3. rubberduckies

    rubberduckies Professional

    Aug 3, 2008
    Depends on how much drive Rafa still has at the ripe old age of 25.
    Really just boils down to where he feels he is in his life and career.
  4. TheNatural

    TheNatural Legend

    Jan 27, 2005
    Depends on the player.

    Nadal would probably just retire since he'd also have won a bunch of Davis cups, all the slams and the singles Gold by the time he breaks the record.

    Fed would probably keep playing until he's 35 or 40 to try to grab the FO, some Davis cups and the singles Gold.
  5. rhubarb

    rhubarb Hall of Fame

    Jul 3, 2004
    Sampras actually played the year of the Hewitt/Nalbandian final (2002), and lost to George Bastl in the second round. After that, he'd have had to beat Federer, whom he'd already lost to in 2001. The balls were getting slower, and so was the grass, so I honestly doubt he'd have managed another Wimbledon. I think he retired at the right time.

    THERAFA Banned

    Feb 24, 2009
    Still, when you see guys like Nalbandian get through the Wimbledon draw and I think even Hewitt's draw that year was pretty basic, Wimbledon is the kind of draw that can have serious openings since so many of the top players aren't quite the same on grass. And even the guys that do well like Roddick I'd have expected Sampras to take care of him. Bastl was just an aberration. But if Sampras was injury free I can see the US Open being the slam he'd have had a shot at if he'd continued playing, but thats only if he was injury free, and its harder to be injury free entering US Open that it is entering Wimbledon when Sampras would have had a long break of skipping Aust Open and RG.
  7. clayman2000

    clayman2000 Hall of Fame

    Jun 30, 2006
    Who cares.
    Federer might not, and is already ahead of Sampras in GOAT charts in the eys of many (like myself)
    Nadal maybe, but even if Nadal won only 4 more slams and 1 was on a non-clay surface i would put him a head of Pete

    Petes's record is overrated. Firstly, i am not a Sampras hater...he was definitely the greatest player in his era and had a great career, but the point his that his sucess is rooted in Wimbledon, where the court was taylor made for him, and the USO, where he had the crowd, court speed, and familiarness with the court. He won only 2 slams on the courts not best suited for his game. Nadal has already won 2 on these types of courts, and Federer has 8. Federer originally did not play well on HC, in fact his 1st HC QF match was the year he 1st won the AO. He was a S&V player, but adjusted his game
  8. egn

    egn Hall of Fame

    Dec 15, 2008
    The record isn't even broken yet so who says Sampras is not going to hold it for a long time. Last time I checked it looked like this

    Sampras 14
    Federer 13
    Emerson 12
    Borg 11
    Tilden 10
    Lendl 8

    and so on and so forth. You know what we need. A 9 slam winner and we can count backwards from 14 to 0. That would be cool. Someone send this memo to Nadal and Fed and tell them to stop winning slams, well Nadal gets to 9 and then stops. Unless they decide to have Agassi come back and get 9 and either Nadal or Fed agree to go to 15 and the other goes or stays at 13.

    Okay all serious though I think the record will stand for a while..everyone said when Fed was at 7 he would crush it with 17 look what happened..I see the same thing happening to Nadal. When a player is at the best we assume it will be like that for a long time to come. It is unpredictable, but if one of the two manages to break it I think they can have it for a while. 20-30 years or so.

Share This Page