Sampras famously won the 1990 U.S. Open, beating Lendl in a five set QF along the way. He then closed the year by winning the inaugural Grand Slam Cup, straight setting Chang and Gilbert in the BO5 SF/F.
Sampras then looked to be heading into 1991 with a full head of steam before withdrawing on the eve of the Australian Open with shin splints. Sampras's first tournament back was the U.S. Pro Indoor, where he made it to the final before losing to Lendl in five sets. Sampras later returned the favor at WTF, smoking Lendl, 6-2, 6-3 in the SF before beating Courier in a four set final.
Because Sampras withdrew from the 1991 AO so late, we actually know his draw. He was the #4 seed, in Section 6 of the draw, replaced by qualifier Leonardo Lavalle. Had Sampras played, his draw would have been:
Sampras later withdrew from the 1992 Australian Open with an inflamed shoulder tendon before losing to Edberg in the 1993 SF, taking the title in 1994, and losing the final to Agassi in 1995.
So, how would a healthy Sampras have fared in 1991? I don't see any problems in rounds 1-3 or the QF. Krajicek was a huge nemesis for Sampras, but he was only 19 at the time and wouldn't record his first top 10 win until later in the year.
That leaves Lendl and Becker. As noted, after Sampras's five set win over Lendl in the 1990 U.S. Open QF, they split their matches in 1991, with Lendl winning one in five sets and Sampras straight setting Lendl in the other match. I tend to think Rebound Ace favors Lendl's game more than Sampras's game, especially with Sampras's game still developing in 1991. OTOH, Lendl looked pretty average in the final against Becker, and you could say his days of contending in Major finals were over (this was the last Major final he'd reach and he had to save match points against Edberg to make it there).
As for Sampras/Becker, they played three times in 1991, with Sampras winning in the finals of the RCA Championships in Indianapolis and Becker winning a QF match in Stockholm and a RR match at WTF (with Sampras later taking the title). I tend to think Boris takes out Pete at that stage in their careers, but I wish we could have seen the two play at a Major other than Wimbledon.
Anyway, what do others think? Would a healthy Sampras have taken the title? And, if so, would that have helped or hurt his career in the long run? On the positive side, it might have spurred him to Slam success earlier rather than waiting until 1993 Wimbledon to take his second Major. On the negative side, with a title here, maybe he rests on his laurels a bit too much and doesn't develop his game as much as he did.
Sampras then looked to be heading into 1991 with a full head of steam before withdrawing on the eve of the Australian Open with shin splints. Sampras's first tournament back was the U.S. Pro Indoor, where he made it to the final before losing to Lendl in five sets. Sampras later returned the favor at WTF, smoking Lendl, 6-2, 6-3 in the SF before beating Courier in a four set final.
Because Sampras withdrew from the 1991 AO so late, we actually know his draw. He was the #4 seed, in Section 6 of the draw, replaced by qualifier Leonardo Lavalle. Had Sampras played, his draw would have been:
First Round: Lundgren
Second Round: Layendecker
Third Round: Caratti
Fourth Round: Krajicek
Quarterfinal: Patrick McEnroe
Semifinal: Becker
Final: Lendl
Sampras later withdrew from the 1992 Australian Open with an inflamed shoulder tendon before losing to Edberg in the 1993 SF, taking the title in 1994, and losing the final to Agassi in 1995.
So, how would a healthy Sampras have fared in 1991? I don't see any problems in rounds 1-3 or the QF. Krajicek was a huge nemesis for Sampras, but he was only 19 at the time and wouldn't record his first top 10 win until later in the year.
That leaves Lendl and Becker. As noted, after Sampras's five set win over Lendl in the 1990 U.S. Open QF, they split their matches in 1991, with Lendl winning one in five sets and Sampras straight setting Lendl in the other match. I tend to think Rebound Ace favors Lendl's game more than Sampras's game, especially with Sampras's game still developing in 1991. OTOH, Lendl looked pretty average in the final against Becker, and you could say his days of contending in Major finals were over (this was the last Major final he'd reach and he had to save match points against Edberg to make it there).
As for Sampras/Becker, they played three times in 1991, with Sampras winning in the finals of the RCA Championships in Indianapolis and Becker winning a QF match in Stockholm and a RR match at WTF (with Sampras later taking the title). I tend to think Boris takes out Pete at that stage in their careers, but I wish we could have seen the two play at a Major other than Wimbledon.
Anyway, what do others think? Would a healthy Sampras have taken the title? And, if so, would that have helped or hurt his career in the long run? On the positive side, it might have spurred him to Slam success earlier rather than waiting until 1993 Wimbledon to take his second Major. On the negative side, with a title here, maybe he rests on his laurels a bit too much and doesn't develop his game as much as he did.
