Is Sampras salty that Djokovic also passed his slam tally?

Is Petros salty?


  • Total voters
    120

powerangle

Legend
Not one player, not two, but now three active players have passed him up on the majors tally. He mistakenly thought it super secure when he retired shortly after the 2002 US Open, but now less than two decades later three men have moved above him.

In this article Pete states that Roger, Rafa, and Novak won't ever achieve the CYGS and that he's confident of it. Is the timing of this (just after ND won his 15th slam) a little suspect? Like obviously the CYGS will be very difficult to achieve and likely none of the Big 3 will achieve it, but Pete couldn't have mentioned this at a different time? He only NOW states it?!

Me thinks his defensive mechanism kicked in a bit here. Do you think he's a tad butthurt or I'm just reading too much into it?

https://www.express.co.uk/sport/tennis/1082406/Roger-Federer-Rafael-Nadal-Novak-Djokovic-Pete-Sampras-Rod-Laver
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
They kind of put words in Sampras' mouth because I think he was speaking on behalf of Laver's 50 year anniversary of 1969 and said Laver's two CYGS will never be passed and he is right basically. The media tried to turn into Sampras was trying to slight the Big 3 and create drama. To answer your question, I'm sure Sampras is not happy any of the 3 passed his record but that's only natural.

http://www.tennisnow.com/Blogs/NET-POSTS/January-2019/Sampras-This-Record-Will-Never-Be-Broken.aspx
 

upchuck

Hall of Fame
I've read/heard rumblings about how distant he's been. He should've been on hand to give Djokovic his 14th major title last year.
 

powerangle

Legend
They kind of put words in Sampras' mouth because I think he was speaking on behalf of Laver's 50 year anniversary of 1969 and said Laver's two CYGS will never be passed and he is right basically. The media tried to turn into Sampras was trying to slight the Big 3 and create drama. To answer your question, I'm sure Sampras is not happy any of the 3 passed his record but that's only natural.

http://www.tennisnow.com/Blogs/NET-POSTS/January-2019/Sampras-This-Record-Will-Never-Be-Broken.aspx
Thanks for that link. I guess he's not that petty.
 

powerangle

Legend
I've read/heard rumblings about how distant he's been. He should've been on hand to give Djokovic his 14th major title last year.
I recall Sampras sitting in the stands of Wim 2009, ready to congratulate Fed for winning his 15th major. That was then, this is now.

I don't remember him waiting to congratulate Rafa or Novak on passing the 14-mark.
 

brystone

Semi-Pro
Probably, and I dont blame him. For a variety of reasons, the homogenized conditions are pretty obviously making it easier for great players to rack up majors. I expect about 6 players will be on atleast 20 majors by say 2050, unless they change something about the tour.

Most of all though he foolishly overestimated how great 14 majors was, when it would probably have been something like 7th or 8th best all time had Open tennis and focusing on all 4 majors been in place earlier. In reality his 6 straight year end #1s and 7 Wimbledons were far better records than his 14 slams. That led to waning motivation from 98 onwards when it was pretty clear he would break the record, and especialy in 2000 when he actually did. He probably could have won a lot more than 14 had he not been deluded to how great 14 ever was.
 

Tshooter

G.O.A.T.
Not one player, not two, but now three active players have passed him up on the majors tally. ...
:unsure:

Fed 20 "majors" - 6AO = 14 Majors
VAMOS 16 "majors" - 1AO = 15 Majors
Djoker 15 "majors" - 7AO = 8 Majors
Pete 14"majors" - 2AO = 12 Majors

Major Titles:

VAMOS 15 (VAMOS !)
FEDR 14
Pete 12
Djoker 8
 
Last edited:

brystone

Semi-Pro
This is an important and underrated achievement.
Very much so. Especialy since none of the Big 3 will match it; even if Djokovic catches/passes 6 YE#1s as he probably will he will not do it consecutively which will still be unique to Pete.
 

ghostofMecir

Hall of Fame
I’m pretty sure he doesn’t care at all. He was probably upset Federer passed him in everything, but after that, Nadal or Djokovic passing him in things...probably not a big deal.

In fact, he probably would argue that it’s not that big a deal when three guys do it becuse it means it’s inherently easier to do so if three people in such a short span did it.
 

vernonbc

Legend
Probably, and I dont blame him. For a variety of reasons, the homogenized conditions are pretty obviously making it easier for great players to rack up majors. I expect about 6 players will be on atleast 20 majors by say 2050, unless they change something about the tour.
Love people talking about current homogenized conditions. Back when Laver was winning CYGSs, three of the slams were all on grass. Imagine how many Rafa would have if three of the four slams were on clay.
 

clout

Hall of Fame
I think he's more shocked then "salty" about it, and I don't blame him cuz when he retired with 14 in 2002, I thought it would've stood for quite a while too. Having 3 players pass him just 15 years following his retirement has to be one of the most mind-blowing occurrences in sports.
 

mahesh69a

Semi-Pro
Sampras set a new mark (or pushed the boundary) - IF he was ever salty (I don't think Sampras is that kind of person), I think it would have been when Fed overtook him and set a new mark.
 

chjtennis

G.O.A.T.
I think Sampras might now be bi*ching about homogenization, which is perfectly fair. Having said that, he may also be embracing the reality that 3 of the most exceptional talents are setting records after records at the moment. After all, champions like Sampras are competitive but also realistic. He must be recognizing the amazing talent of Fed-Nad-Djok, even though that may make him just a little jealous. I never believed anyone would break Sampas' slam record of 14 and 7 Wimbledon titles, and the kind of records these 3 guys are piling up are just crazy insane. Probably, they will be appreciated even more after they all retire. It may take a century for anyone to break their records.
 

BlueB

Legend
RG is a Major so that would make no sense when calculating a tally of Majors won.

Not sent from a SM-G965W and not sent using Tapatalk.
Since we are arbitrarily omitting majors, it's worthwhile doing the exercise with all of them. Try W too...

Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk
 
Love people talking about current homogenized conditions. Back when Laver was winning CYGSs, three of the slams were all on grass. Imagine how many Rafa would have if three of the four slams were on clay.
You better know something about Laver and his time before talking about his situation back then, no?

:cool:
 

Goret

Rookie
Still, let's not forget Laver's first CYGS was in the amateur tour, and thus arguably easier to achieve than an Open Era CYGS. I'd say a player would match Laver if having a CYGS and a NCYGS, both in the Open Era.
 

Djokodalerer31

Hall of Fame
He is saying he is confident no one will do what Laver did, which means winning CYGS TWICE, not ONCE! He understands Novak can do it ONCE, but what he is saying is that TWICE is impossible...with which i agree! But Novak more than capable of winning CYGS this season...just wait and see!
 

ChrisRF

Hall of Fame
Still, let's not forget Laver's first CYGS was in the amateur tour, and thus arguably easier to achieve than an Open Era CYGS. I'd say a player would match Laver if having a CYGS and a NCYGS, both in the Open Era.
Sampras has always massively overrated his idol Laver and didn’t know that much about tennis history in general (that’s why he made such a fuss about Emerson’s "record" of 12 Slams, though all in Amateur era.)

To put Laver’s achievements (including the "two CYGS") in perspective:

Laver has won 11 "official" Slams, but 6 of them were Amateur Slams. In 1962, when he won his first so-called CYGS, he was not even the best tennis player in the world that year, because the Pro Tour (with Rosewall on top) was much better.

If we are very kind to Laver, then MAYBE he would have won 2-3 Open Slams until 1962, but rather unlikely (remember Rosewall still dominated in 1963 on the Pro Tour with Laver winning NONE of the 3 Pro Slams).

Then only Laver (8 titles) and Rosewall (7 titles) won the 15 Pro Slams from 1963-68. If we want to extrapolate that on the 21 Slams that Laver missed from 1963 until the 1968 Australian Championships, it would be 11 titles, but we must consider that he would also lose some matches to Roy Emerson, who was the best Amateur these days.

Also the smaller draws (mainly 8 players) at the Pro Slams were a slight advantage, even though the draw only consisted of very good players. But the occasional early loss was always possible in draws of 128.

So all that would be cancelled out a bit, and I think as an estimation we could go back to about 8 Open Slams he would have won in that era. And then he had his 5 Open Slams in reality starting in 1968.

So that would be 3+8+5 = 16 Slams in total (and I think I am very kind to him in my estimation here).

And the "200 titles in total" thing brought up by some worshippers is just laughable. The draws often were so small and easy that it were rather exhibitions than tournaments. I think sometimes he played even 2 of those "tournaments" per week. Imagine if peak Federer or Djokovic could have played such a schedule.

So, to make it short: Fo me the 1962 CYGS counts for almost nothing in terms of all-time greatness because Laver was clearly not even the best player in the world that year (which was Rosewall in the Pro circuit).

In conclusion, both Laver and Sampras are realistically not in the GOAT debate. Also if Djokovic really gets the CYGS this year he tops everything Laver has ever achieved.
 

ibbi

Legend
Maybe I'm just seeing things but this article appears to have invented a mythical Australian Open final that Nadal lost to Federer. I would take everything in it with a mountain or two of salt.
 
Top