If Sampras gets 8 in a row at Wimbledon?

[BGod]

Has been brought up many times but needs an updated discussion.

We now have 3 guys surpassing Sampras as his claim to fame was his 14 Slam tallies and his strong domination at Wimbledon and US Opens. Now I still have him ahead of Nadal for exactly that reason and his Tour Finals and Slam Cups. However the big what if is his 1996 Wimbledon. Nobody was beating Krajicek that year as he dropped a single set in a tiebreak. However he often got injured and we can reasonably assume without him Sampras wins it all. After 1996 he was only challenged in the 1998 final by Goran and in a match he was leading the entire time.

8 consecutive Wimbledons would not have just kept him tied with Roger currently but would have been the first 6, 7 and 8 consecutive streak at ANY Slam in the Open Era. In fact that 8 in a row would have even superseded Bill Tilden and Renshaw's pre OE records of 6 straight titles at a Slam.

That one difference not only extends Sampras' haul to 15 but puts him on a mark ahead of everyone for the sport's history. How does that alter his legacy standpoint? I would imagine no matter Roger or Nadal's final tally people would still come in and say " Well Sampras won 8 in a row and nobody even got 6 ".

 

[Cup8489]

Coulda woulda shoulda. Didn't.

Federer would have won 7 in a row if not for Wimby 2008, but that didn't happen either.
Nadal would have won 10 in a row if not for Soderling in 2009. Again: coulda, woulda, shoulda, didn't.

 

[Centrius]

IMO Sampras would still be the greatest grass courter.

 

[Purplemonster]

Sampras never lost a Wimbledon final.

 

[mike danny]

It would be tough to argue Roger's case as the greatest grass courter of the Open Era or even of all time if Sampras won 8 in a row at Wimb.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

It would be tough to argue Roger's case as the greatest grass courter of the Open Era or even of all time if Sampras won 8 in a row at Wimb.

Federer’s legacy is saved by someone else yet again.

Thank and God bless!

 

[Sport]

Has been brought up many times but needs an updated discussion.

We now have 3 guys surpassing Sampras as his claim to fame was his 14 Slam tallies and his strong domination at Wimbledon and US Opens. Now I still have him ahead of Nadal for exactly that reason and his Tour Finals and Slam Cups.

Which is equally ridiculous as saying "I have Nadal over Federer for his strong domination of Roland Garros, for having at least two Grand Slams on three surfaces, the Olympics, Masters 1000 record and a clear H2H advantage". No one cares about non-Slam factors unless two players are tied in Grand Slams. Only if two players are tied in Grand Slams you can consider other factors as tie-breakers.

Nadal > Sampras.
17 > 14.

 

[Towny]

I'd probably have him ahead of Djokovic but still behind Nadal. Nadal would still have a 2 slam lead, more longevity and Nadal's dominance at RG would still surpass Sampras at Wimbledon. Plus the career slam. But his extra slam, and more time at number 1, along with an insane Wimbledon 8 in a row would probably just about edge out Djokovic for me, though it would be very close. I'd probably also have him above Federer at Wimbledon. In spite of Fed's extra finals, 8 in a row is insane.

 

[mike danny]

I'd probably have him ahead of Djokovic but still behind Nadal. Nadal would still have a 2 slam lead, more longevity and Nadal's dominance at RG would still surpass Sampras at Wimbledon. Plus the career slam. But his extra slam, and more time at number 1, along with an insane Wimbledon 8 in a row would probably just about edge out Djokovic for me, though it would be very close. I'd probably also have him above Federer at Wimbledon. In spite of Fed's extra finals, 8 in a row is insane.

You hit the nail in the head right there with the bolded part. Thanks to Krajicek, Roger's case is stronger than Sampras's case on grass.

 

[axlrose]

He is still the grass GOAT.

7 lightning speed Wimby >>> 14 green mud Wimby, and as far as I know, nobody has won 14 green mud Wimby yet.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Nadal > Sampras.
17 > 14.

Nadal has the CGS which Pete obviously never attained. There's no discussion necessary on this: Nadal over Pete because of 17 > 14 majors. Pete's YE #1's and weeks at #1 are impressive compared to Nadal, but slams are the determining factor in GOAT debates. This matter was settled years ago. Once Nadal passed 14 majors, the discussion was moot.

 

[tennis_pro]

It's probably too late for that.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

I stopped reading at Sampras being greater than Nadal. If Sampras existed in the era 2003 - 2018 he might have won Wimby in 2010, 2012, 2013, 2016 and 2017, he would not have won RG, he might have won the US Open in 2009, 2012, 2013, 2016 and 2017, I doubt he would have won an AO (maybe 2014) and he would have squeezed in a few WTF titles late in his career in 2016, 2017 and 2018. He would probably have been YE # 1 in 2012, 2013, 2016 and 2017.

That would give you a slam tally something like:

Fed: 17
Rafa: 14
Djoker: 14
Pete: 10 - 11

 

[Prabhanjan]

Sampras was nowhere close to a 5th in a row. If there is a drop between two streaks, you don't just add them up. No one in the open era has won 6 in a row, and only Borg, Federer, and Nadal have 5 in a row, with Fed twice. The accumulation is too much of pressure, and Borg wilted the 6th final at Wimbledon, and Fed did that twice in Wimbledon 2008 and US 09. Nadal dropped well before the finals of the sixth run. So, it is too much to talk about Sampras above Borg, Federer, and Nadal for long streaks. Wasn't Sampras straight setted by Krajieck, and that too in QF? That's way too of a long streak.

 

[Subway Tennis]

Has been brought up many times but needs an updated discussion.

We now have 3 guys surpassing Sampras as his claim to fame was his 14 Slam tallies and his strong domination at Wimbledon and US Opens. Now I still have him ahead of Nadal for exactly that reason and his Tour Finals and Slam Cups. However the big what if is his 1996 Wimbledon. Nobody was beating Krajicek that year as he dropped a single set in a tiebreak. However he often got injured and we can reasonably assume without him Sampras wins it all. After 1996 he was only challenged in the 1998 final by Goran and in a match he was leading the entire time.

8 consecutive Wimbledons would not have just kept him tied with Roger currently but would have been the first 6, 7 and 8 consecutive streak at ANY Slam in the Open Era. In fact that 8 in a row would have even superseded Bill Tilden and Renshaw's pre OE records of 6 straight titles at a Slam.

That one difference not only extends Sampras' haul to 15 but puts him on a mark ahead of everyone for the sport's history. How does that alter his legacy standpoint? I would imagine no matter Roger or Nadal's final tally people would still come in and say " Well Sampras won 8 in a row and nobody even got 6 ".

The biggest thing Sampras had going for him wasnt just his immense records, but his complete mental and physical domination of all his closest rivals. Anyone who emerged as a challenger never got anywhere close to consistently getting the better of him and he made sure of that over his career.

When he retired, he held all the relevant records, was way ahead of all of his rivals, but importantly was essnentially unchallenged by his peers. He'd won the rivalry with all the other people who could have eclipsed him in his own time.

The current greats of this era are not really in the same position. Pete really went out on his own terms and kind of "passed the batton" via the transition era and Hewitt, to the young Federer, who he thought was going to be a similarly dominant champion.

 

[George Turner]

The biggest thing Sampras had going for him wasnt just his immense records, but his complete mental and physical domination of all his closest rivals. Anyone who emerged as a challenger never got anywhere close to consistently getting the better of him and he made sure of that over his career.

When he retired, he held all the relevant records, was way ahead of all of his rivals, but importantly was essnentially unchallenged by his peers. He'd won the rivalry with all the other people who could have eclipsed him in his own time.

The current greats of this era are not really in the same position. Pete really went out on his own terms and kind of "passed the batton" via the transition era and Hewitt, to the young Federer, who he thought was going to be a similarly dominant champion.

Kraijeck 6-4 Sampras
Stich 5-4 Sampras

if TW had existed in the 90's we have had a field day with those H2H records!

 

[Subway Tennis]

Kraijeck 6-4 Sampras
Stich 5-4 Sampras

if TW had existed in the 90's we have had a field day with those H2H records!

Delving into wikipedia, TA, and the atp site for H2H data is perfectly fine, as long as you are not seriously saying Stich and Krajicek are two of Pete's closest rivals.

I dont think Krajicek ever even played Sampras in a title match. And Stich is a fine player with some great matches against Pete but anyone familiar with tennis at that time can tell you he was not one of his closest rivals.

 

[MeatTornado]

Sampras was nowhere close to a 5th in a row. If there is a drop between two streaks, you don't just add them up. No one in the open era has won 6 in a row, and only Borg, Federer, and Nadal have 5 in a row, with Fed twice. The accumulation is too much of pressure, and Borg wilted the 6th final at Wimbledon, and Fed did that twice in Wimbledon 2008 and US 09. Nadal dropped well before the finals of the sixth run. So, it is too much to talk about Sampras above Borg, Federer, and Nadal for long streaks. Wasn't Sampras straight setted by Krajieck, and that too in QF? That's way too of a long streak.

Do you honestly believe something special happens on the 6th time that just makes it impossible? What are you even talking about? There's no more pressure in that 6th title than there is for the 5th. We just haven't seen it happen yet.

Borg and Federer "wilted" in their Wimbledon bids for #6 because Mac & Rafa played better. Nadal had been declining for an entire year by the time RG 2015 came around. It wasn't the pressure of #6 that made him lose to Novak.

 

[HetTheGreaterer]

Do you honestly believe something special happens on the 6th time that just makes it impossible? What are you even talking about? There's no more pressure in that 6th title than there is for the 5th. We just haven't seen it happen yet.

Borg and Federer "wilted" in their Wimbledon bids for #6 because Mac & Rafa played better. Nadal had been declining for an entire year by the time RG 2015 came around. It wasn't the pressure of #6 that made him lose to Novak.

Fed absolutely choked 2009 USO,

 

[travlerajm]

Sampras never lost a Wimbledon final.

That’s why he’s clearly the Michael Jordan of tennis. I guess that means Federer is Lebron.

 

[Prabhanjan]

Do you honestly believe something special happens on the 6th time that just makes it impossible? What are you even talking about? There's no more pressure in that 6th title than there is for the 5th. We just haven't seen it happen yet.

The point is not just about 6th being special, but that adding one in between two streaks just does not simply combine them. Well before one goes for 7th in a row or 8th in a row, there is 6th that begs to be resolved.

Borg and Federer "wilted" in their Wimbledon bids for #6 because Mac & Rafa played better. Nadal had been declining for an entire year by the time RG 2015 came around. It wasn't the pressure of #6 that made him lose to Novak.

Same Borg beat Mac the previous year, and Fed two times earlier. Building streaks is definitely strenous and the pressure is easily to be surmounting.

 

[Julian Houston]

Remember Fedr beat Sampras to prevent 5 in a row too. If that match Fedr didn't win, no doubt Samp will be getting his 8th and 5th in a row.

 

[Julian Houston]

I stopped reading at Sampras being greater than Nadal. If Sampras existed in the era 2003 - 2018 he might have won Wimby in 2010, 2012, 2013, 2016 and 2017, he would not have won RG, he might have won the US Open in 2009, 2012, 2013, 2016 and 2017, I doubt he would have won an AO (maybe 2014) and he would have squeezed in a few WTF titles late in his career in 2016, 2017 and 2018. He would probably have been YE # 1 in 2012, 2013, 2016 and 2017.

That would give you a slam tally something like:

Fed: 17
Rafa: 14
Djoker: 14
Pete: 10 - 11

Too much, current game is too physical and Pete's major weakness is physical and health. He will have only 3 slams max like Murry goat.

Tennis improved in 2003-2018 era, Agassi will be better player than Samp I believe.

 

[ChrisRF]

I’m not that sure if it really was due to Krajicek being unbeatable or if Sampras had a bad day (year) and it was just time for the occasional loss.

A similar question occurs about the whole event: Yes, Krajicek only lost one set, but it was a tournament without big names at the end, and Krajicek was the last man standing. His SF and F opponents were Stoltenberg and Washington (not his fault of course), while his only other decent opponent was Stich in R16. So was he really “unbeatable”?

Sampras on the other hand lost sets to Reneberg and Kucera even before meeting Krajicek. Still I think he would have beaten Stoltenberg and Washington later, but maybe someone like Stich would have lead to his QF demise as well, who knows?

By the way, the same speculations could be done for Federer at RG 2004. With some right one could say: “If only Kuerten (who wasn’t able to get to the final stages anymore, but was capable of the occasional big win) would have been a few more slots away in the draw, then Federer would have won CYGS”. Because Nadal wasn’t there already, and Federer wouldn’t have much trouble with the likes of Coria and Gaudio.

But as another poster said, it just wasn’t to be.

 

[Xavier G]

IF Pete gets 8 in a row at Wimbledon, I presume he is still beaten by Roger in 2001 in this fantasy scenario, who then goes to win 8 of his own, so the arguments still rage on!

Pete's best streak at Wimbledon in reality was bettered by Fed's 2003-09 run of 6 wins in 7 finals in 7 championships.

 

[rueandre]

Sampras legacy is not aging well. When he retired many had him as the GOAT, as the older champs like Laver and Gonzales were not as respected as they have become again in the last 20 years. Now he is seen by most as only 5th best in the Open Era behind Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Borg. The only one of those a decent number of people might still have him over is Borg. Sampras and his legacy have suffered the most with so many guys winning slams and Federer, since Federer mostly took down all of the marks Sampras held, while others still have their own unique things that Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic have not yet eclipsed apart from Borg at RG.