Is Pete Sampras a top 5 tennis player of all time?

[Martin J]

Incredibly impressive, of course. I'm not trying to take anything away from Pete, it just doesn't hold up when making a 1:1 comparison with Fed & Novak.

Losing to Nadal & Murray in 08/13 says more about how the game changed than Fed/Novak's specific skills on grass. If those matches were played in like 93 & 98, you couldn't fathom Pete losing to baseliners like that on grass. But that's not the world Fed & Novak were playing in at the time. If Pete tried to play his way in 2008 & 2013 against returners like Nadal and Murray, you better believe he's getting broken more than 4 times.

Yeah, I clearly disagree with that. I believe the main reason for their losses is the type of game they play on the surface, rather than the change/evolution of the sport.

You had a player like Kevin Anderson who blew the best returner in today's game (or in the last 20 years) off the court with 40 aces and almost beat him during his best Wimbledon run (vs Djokovic in 2015), you had a journeyman serve and volley player with a winning record against Nadal at Wimbledon, out of three matches they played, and it says something about the skills that are highly effective on this surface.

Sure, the 2008 version was a formidable opponent, but the match was still played on his terms, he managed to drag his opponent into a baseline contest, who couldn't exploit his biggest weakness on grass (the return of serve). Old or new grass, it's still grass and it rewards huge serves, sharp volleys, first-strike tennis, etc.

 

[Martin J]

Sampras would blow Borg off the court on anything other than clay, he's a clear Number 4 + still the best on fast grass

Borg never liked the net-rushers, it would be a tough match-up for him I think.

 

[RS]

Sampras vs Murray's 2nd serve

 

[RS]

NonP isn't active anymore

 

[Racquet_smash]

The issue about Petros is that while he was a monumental geass courter as well as an amazing hard courter, his game just wasn't versatile to all kinds of surfaces. It's not like he was great on clay and not as good as he was on the faster surfaces. He doesn't even break into the top 50 of the open era there.

On the other end, Borg wasn't just a top dog everywhere, he was THE top dog. Clay, grass, carpet, he was the best player of his time on all of these surfaces. 64 titles at 25 years of age speak for themselves.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Sampras would blow Borg off the court on anything other than clay, he's a clear Number 4 + still the best on fast grass

Maybe, but Borg would beat Sampras at clay by a far bigger margin that Sampras would Borg at grass or hard. So he could easily end up leading the H2H.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Unless Sampras pulls a Rafa !!!!

Maybe, but Borg would beat Sampras at clay by a far bigger margin that Sampras would Borg at grass or hard. So he could easily end up leading the H2H.

 

[PedrosCousin]

He's #6. Borg is #5.

No way Borg is above Pistol Pete. Did you ever watch EITHER play?

 

[jm1972]

No way Borg is above Pistol Pete. Did you ever watch EITHER play?

What? What's you're talking about primo?

 

[TheGoldenEra1990’s]

Who was his competition?

Agassi best competitor. Goran on grass. Rafter on hard? Muster on clay? Edberg, Courier?

What’s wrong with that competition on those surfaces? Bruguera, Kafelnikov, Becker, also among others.

That’s far more depth than the crap today on tour

 

[RS]

What’s wrong with that competition on those surfaces? Bruguera, Kafelnikov, Becker, also among others.

That’s far more depth than the crap today on tour

Not as much depth as 2003-2005

 

[Rosstour]

What’s wrong with that competition on those surfaces? Bruguera, Kafelnikov, Becker, also among others.

That’s far more depth than the crap today on tour

Agassi was a part time player compared to today's pros. Wasted so much time/opportunity and he was still Pete's greatest rival

Edberg, Courier...had pretty short windows. Muster won ONE Slam.

Ivanesevic was a head case who got lucky near the end of his career, if not for Federer he'd have gone down to PETE like he always did. He's like the Kyrgios of the 90s

In contrast Rafa is the ultimate clay competitor. Fed beat everyone else on clay including the Djominator in his absolute best season

Even Murray is a far better player than anyone PETE faced

 

[RS]

All-time, no. Open Era, yes. If you talk about the level of play he achieved then you could put him in the discussion still probably. I would put Fedalovic + Laver and Gonzalez definitely ahead, I think the discussion is basically PETE versus Rosewall and Tilden. The problem with PETE in the all time comparisons is his longevity and the fact that he really picked his spots compared to other ATG's. Rosewall had some years of dominance but his claim to the GOAT discussion is his longevity and the sheer amount he won in totality. Tilden is a guy that has a GOAT peak in terms of numbers but in a much shallower era, but he also had ridiculous longevity competing with Don Budge into his 50's. For me PETE is in the 6-8 range.

I can imagine it might be difficult to access in Tilden's case but his numbers look pretty crazy.

 

[NatF]

I can imagine it might be difficult to access in Tilden's case but his numbers look pretty crazy.

Weak era but basically impossible to do better.

 

[RS]

Weak era but basically impossible to do better.

Yeah even if somebody dominates even a weaker period there is a degree were it's just too much to ignore and I think Tilden clears that.

Also I guess if posters value level of play it might be hard because Tilden is too far back for most footage to be available you have to rely on accounts of other people for that.

 

[Barton]

No. Top 5 only for OE.

 

[Barton]

All-time, no. Open Era, yes. If you talk about the level of play he achieved then you could put him in the discussion still probably. I would put Fedalovic + Laver and Gonzalez definitely ahead, I think the discussion is basically PETE versus Rosewall and Tilden. The problem with PETE in the all time comparisons is his longevity and the fact that he really picked his spots compared to other ATG's. Rosewall had some years of dominance but his claim to the GOAT discussion is his longevity and the sheer amount he won in totality. Tilden is a guy that has a GOAT peak in terms of numbers but in a much shallower era, but he also had ridiculous longevity competing with Don Budge into his 50's. For me PETE is in the 6-8 range.

You have inspired me to join this forum, sir.

 

[RS]

You have inspired me to join this forum, sir.

 

[Barton]

Do I remind you of someone?

 

[RS]

Do I remind you of someone?

nah

 

[TheGoldenEra1990’s]

Let’s put it this way. While he may not have the record (records were always meant to be broke anyways and you ultimately can’t compare records across eras anyways) , if there was one player I would want playing for me if my life was on the line and it was off clay, it wouldn’t be Federer or djokovic or Borg etc. It would be Sampras


Sampras was a true killer on the court and could mess with your rhythm and take your head out of the game like no other player could do

 

[mental midget]

OE yes, for sure. Big 3, Borg & Sampras. All time I'd say it's them and Laver. He is somwhere between 4-6.

same. the clay thing definitely tarnishes his standing next to the others...i think in part he just 'picked his poison' with regards to his game style/stroke production, way better suited to the low bounce...but as an overall athlete, shotmaker, competitor etc...i think there's an argument for him in the top 3 even.

 

[austintennis2005]

Laver and Big-3.

lol that midget laver couldn’t carry Pete’s jockstrap

 

[Galvermegs]

Agassi was a part time player compared to today's pros. Wasted so much time/opportunity and he was still Pete's greatest rival

Edberg, Courier...had pretty short windows. Muster won ONE Slam.

Ivanesevic was a head case who got lucky near the end of his career, if not for Federer he'd have gone down to PETE like he always did. He's like the Kyrgios of the 90s

In contrast Rafa is the ultimate clay competitor. Fed beat everyone else on clay including the Djominator in his absolute best season

Even Murray is a far better player than anyone PETE faced

Oh Rt how i love to disagree with you(!) I will remind you of gorans hh with pete 6-12 with many of them close matches. He also beat everyone of note on grass. He was more unlucky not to win 2 or 3 wimbledons than lucky to win any. Also he racked up 20 odd titles and won all but one of 600 matches. Spearheaded the croatian/balkan armada.

So yes federer took care of pete but then pete was losing to a lot of people after 1999 with his last slams just being 'form is temporary, class is permanent' exhibits.

Goran beat players of note, including difficult matchups in all but one of his 7 matches at wimbledon. The only luck was not to draw sampras, agassi or hewitt early. However he had not made a semi or final at any event for ages so this was some feat. People can rave about federers 2017 comeback from knee injury (which never went away ultimately) but this was also impressive as some of the old weapons and movement had gone. He had to use his patience and tactical side like never before.

I suggest looking up the moya match if you can. It was pretty watchable and i saw it all first time on the (then) new on demand stream so nostalgia holds me to a rewatch these days.


Edberg was a real factor for 8 or 9 seasons.. fairly standard for the time. He also made all 4 slam finals.. which is better, like it or not, then sampras' sf showing in 96.
Muster is one of the best of the single slammers and it is debatable if his car accident episode prevented him from achieving more.

 

[NatF]

Yeah even if somebody dominates even a weaker period there is a degree were it's just too much to ignore and I think Tilden clears that.

Also I guess if posters value level of play it might be hard because Tilden is too far back for most footage to be available you have to rely on accounts of other people for that.

Level of play in an absolute sense is a bit unfair on Tilden. But for his time he was obviously superb, even writing a book on tennis technique. He was also somewhat competitive with younger generations into his 50's, perhaps a sign of the times but also of his skill.

 

[Tennis_Monk]

It is hard to justify Petros (Sampras) above the Big 3. Throw in Rod Laver and Sampras is hovering at spot #5.
I do not know enough about players before open-era . Not sure, if there are any that would push Sampras further down.

Bottom line is , Petros was best during his time. "Of all time" , not as much. If he made top #5, it is barely.

 

[RS]

Level of play in an absolute sense is a bit unfair on Tilden. But for his time he was obviously superb, even writing a book on tennis technique. He was also somewhat competitive with younger generations into his 50's, perhaps a sign of the times but also of his skill.

Not sure if we will ever see someone being competitive in there 50s ever again. Even with the surge in modern medicine.

 

[NAS]

In open era he is still fourth, but overall very difficult to put him in top five with Laver, Pancho, Til dene, Rosewall also in the list

 

[PedrosCousin]

What? What's you're talking about primo?

Did you see how I included your comment quote above what I said? That's what I'm talking about. I thought that would have been clear.

 

[jm1972]

Did you see how I included your comment quote above what I said? That's what I'm talking about. I thought that would have been clear.

You can't have a conversation with yourself without including me primo?

 

[PedrosCousin]

You can't have a conversation with yourself without including me primo?

I was attempting to converse with you, but you appear to be senile or otherwise too impaired to understand what's going on. I think it's nap time, gramps.

 

[Galvermegs]

I was attempting to converse with you, but you appear to be senile or otherwise too impaired to understand what's going on. I think it's nap time, gramps.

Sometimes sleep is underrated

 

[jm1972]

I was attempting to converse with you, but you appear to be senile or otherwise too impaired to understand what's going on. I think it's nap time, gramps.

Who hurt you? It's going to be ok, primo.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

I think he's top 10 most definitely. Could listen to a story or 2 about top 5, doesn't feel like the most unreasonable suggestion ever.

 

[RS]

That sig is pure Poisoned Slice risky mode.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

That sig is pure Poisoned Slice risky mode.

Just an innocent comment about big Ange's quality as a manager.

 

[RS]

Just an innocent comment about big Ange's quality as a manager.

No.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

No.

Fine then.

 

[RS]

Fine then.

Ok. Since you voted I agree.

 

[Kralingen]

Just an innocent comment about big Ange's quality as a manager.

What was the signature? “****”?

 

[RS]

He removed it. lol

 

[Poisoned Slice]

What was the signature? “****”?

Your line about Big Ange not coaching j league philosophy students anymore. lol

 

[RS]

Borderline is where I am tempted to vote. But it's my poll.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

Ok. Since you voted I agree.

I sold out. Accepted bribes.

 

[Hard Court]

It is hard to justify Petros (Sampras) above the Big 3. Throw in Rod Laver and Sampras is hovering at spot #5.
I do not know enough about players before open-era . Not sure, if there are any that would push Sampras further down.

Bottom line is , Petros was best during his time. "Of all time" , not as much. If he made top #5, it is barely.

it turns out that the game was around before our time. You could argue for Tilden, Budge, Kramer, and Gonzales. Laver and Borg from the Open Era. Those guys and "The Big 3" are all pretty close.

 

[Subway Tennis]

In open era he is still fourth, but overall very difficult to put him in top five with Laver, Pancho, Til dene, Rosewall also in the list

What do you think Sampras would need to have included in his achievements to guarantee a top 5 spot, or is it more a question of the strength of his field and level of play?

Sampras is such a historical lynchpin imo. I think more than any other single player he might have been the biggest influence on the current day obsession with majors and the devaluing of the other tiered events because of his own career choices and the way he yielded such control and agency in his career. He has also become a very important link point between the 80s and the oncoming avalanche that was the Big 3 and the slow court era for me because we saw the vulnerability in his game in real time.

He keeps such a low profile but it’s going to be very hard for him to not always be front and centre in tennis history giving his position as the best OE American male player ever with the USA being such a huge tennis market and traditional superpower in the sport.

 

[jrepac]

Let’s put it this way. While he may not have the record (records were always meant to be broke anyways and you ultimately can’t compare records across eras anyways) , if there was one player I would want playing for me if my life was on the line and it was off clay, it wouldn’t be Federer or djokovic or Borg etc. It would be Sampras


Sampras was a true killer on the court and could mess with your rhythm and take your head out of the game like no other player could do

Sampras would be a good choice as he was such a terrific match player....Borg would be my choice right behind him.....he could solve nearly any problem....just not at the USO....put the match there and I want Connors playing for my life

 

[nolefam_2024]

What do you think Sampras would need to have included in his achievements to guarantee a top 5 spot, or is it more a question of the strength of his field and level of play?

Sampras is such a historical lynchpin imo. I think more than any other single player he might have been the biggest influence on the current day obsession with majors and the devaluing of the other tiered events because of his own career choices and the way he yielded such control and agency in his career. He has also become a very important link point between the 80s and the oncoming avalanche that was the Big 3 and the slow court era for me because we saw the vulnerability in his game in real time.

He keeps such a low profile but it’s going to be very hard for him to not always be front and centre in tennis history giving his position as the best OE American male player ever with the USA being such a huge tennis market and traditional superpower in the sport.

Tennis abstract Jeff Sachman puts Sampras outside of all time top 10 let alone top 5.

 

[RS]

I sold out. Accepted bribes.

 

[Subway Tennis]

Tennis abstract Jeff Sachman puts Sampras outside of all time top 10 let alone top 5.

The Tennis 128 is a Herculean achievement. One of the best lists ever. Love reading Jeff Sackmann’s writing and statistical analysis.

The only issue most of us have with such an amazing list is that The ELO system of measurement surveying the 3 key per-determined survey eras to generate the list leaves the great players of the 90s slightly out in the cold because, bizarrely, 90s tennis has a dearth of written match charting data.