Sampras and the French Open: a misunderstanding of mythical proportions

[UnderratedSlam]

A prime Sampras would never lose to Bastl - you and I both know this. And Bastl is really not a good example. You are just grasping at straws here.

Sampras ended his career with USO 2002. That was AFTER the loss to Bastl. He beat a who's who of top names as he won his 14th slam.

So much for "past his prime/peak/shmeep".

 

[Zara]

Not sure why you're arguing so hard. You brought up Federer not me...

I think Sampras would have prioritised Wimbledon and the USO like in his own era, I do think he'd like to prove he could win the FO at least once but whether he'd be able to or not is a different matter.

But Federer has to be brought in though. That's the underlying agenda here, isn't it? Why pretend otherwise. I mean if Federer didn't win RG beating Soderling in the final, he would have not have any RG to his credit to date and this conversation probably would have not existed. The whole reason why he's bragged as the goat.

I agree with the second part of your statement. Just as much I stand by the fact that it's entirely a different matter if Fed would have won an RG or two in another era. The argument is highly subjective and not a concrete one - no matter how many finals he made at RG. We are not considering many other elements to that argument so it's not a valid argument.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

The answer for this is simple: the vast majority of people here have no memories of Sampras and never watched him play. Their exposure to him is limited to grainy Youtube videos that will be posted here. They're too lazy or disengaged to bother searching for Pete videos themselves. Most posters here have one favorite player and are a fan of that player, not of tennis as a whole. They have little knowledge (and couldn't care less) about tennis history. So you're beating your head against the wall to try and inform most people about Sampras.

His main priority from 1994 on, when he had won 3/4 slams, was to win the FO. He stated it repeatedly and it was his most intense goal. These are facts, easily proven, and trying to teach most (not all) people here anything about tennis history or Sampras is a losing cause. They don't care, they care about their guy and the moment he retires, they'll never watch another match. Just accept it and move on.

Just wanted to bold that...

 

[killerboss]

Pete was not willing to adapt his game to clay. He'd often play ultra aggressive points and try and end them quickly, rather than grind. I'm sure he wanted to win it but in terms of adapting, that completely went down the drain in the late 90s. Perhaps the 96 loss Wimbledon against Krajicek had something to do with it.

 

[Zara]

Federer has everything better than Sampras, except the servebot massive serve.

Sampras had a very good 5-setter score, which demolishes all theories of debilitating disease that made him breath like a mountain-climber on the summit of Everest.

All similarities to height and goats is coincidental.

The reasons why Fed is able to sustain this long on the tour is - he has no underlying health issues so he remains healthy; two, his servebot ability helped him last this long, Without his serve, which is still working, he retires back in 2012.

 

[NatF]

But Federer has to be brought in though. That's the underlying agenda here, isn't it? Why pretend otherwise. I mean if Federer didn't win RG beating Soderling in the final, he would have not have any RG to his credit to date and this conversation probably would have not existed. The whole reason why he's bragged as the goat.

I agree with the second part of your statement. Just as much I stand by the fact that it's entirely a different matter if Fed would have won an RG or two in another era. The argument is highly subjective and not a concrete one - no matter how many finals he made at RG. We are not considering many other elements to that argument so it's not a valid argument.

The OP is a Nadal fan...And no the FO win in 2009 is not the whole reason many consider Federer the GOAT, there's much more to it than that.

I wasn't making an argument I was stating my opinion on Federer's clay court prowess minus Nadal after you called it into question. Regardless of the era Federer showed himself to be a clearly better clay court player than Sampras, so bringing him up doesn't serve your argument in anyway.

 

[Zara]

Pete was not willing to adapt his game to clay. He'd often play ultra aggressive points and try and end them quickly, rather than grind. I'm sure he wanted to win it but in terms of adapting, that completely went down the drain in the late 90s. Perhaps the 96 loss Wimbledon against Krajicek had something to do with it.

It had to do with the 1996 loss at Wimbledon against Kraijeck as he was burnt out. He did not want to risk Wimbledon anymore as it was his goal to win as many Wimbledon as possible. I do feel he could have had a better chance before then as he was still healthy and had an all court game.

I think adapting the surface where most courts played very fast was a monumental task. He perhaps didn't see it as worth striving for.

 

[Zara]

The OP is a Nadal fan...And no the FO win in 2009 is not the whole reason many consider Federer the GOAT, there's much more to it than that.

I wasn't making an argument I was stating my opinion on Federer's clay court prowess minus Nadal after you called it into question. Regardless of the era Federer showed himself to be a clearly better clay court player than Sampras, so bringing him up doesn't serve your argument in anyway.

Are you saying Federer would have considered goat without it if we had both Nadal and Djokovic with the same results? I highly doubt it.

I still find it subjective. I don't know if Federer would have made these many finals in the 90s let alone the final. I never found the clay field strong. In fact, I always found it the weakest followed by grass.

 

[Zara]

In fact, had Sampars adjusted his game to suit clay as well then I don't think he would have won more than 8 slams (the year at No. 1 would have been compromised too) just like Agassi, so something had to give and given that most courts were fast, it made sense to have a game that suited fast courts than slow. He made the call he saw fit the most given his goals. If anything, that was a very clever and well thought decision.

 

[NatF]

Are you saying Federer would have considered goat without it if we had both Nadal and Djokovic with the same results? I highly doubt it.

I still find it subjective. I don't know if Federer would have made these many finals in the 90s let alone the final. I never found the clay field strong. In fact, I always found it the weakest followed by grass.

Does Federer still have 20 majors? I think both Federer and Djokovic proved their clay credentials a long time ago, them winning the FO was largely just academic in terms of their legacies.

So you don't know if Federer is better than Sampras on clay? Not sure there's much room for discussion here if you're just going to ignore his results. In the 90's I think Federer would make less finals but have a better chance of winning them when he got there. I don't see how players like Chang, Gomez, Kafelnikov, Agassi or even Moya are any better than Federer on clay.

 

[Zara]

Does Federer still have 20 majors? I think both Federer and Djokovic proved their clay credentials a long time ago, them winning the FO was largely just academic in terms of their legacies.

So you don't know if Federer is better than Sampras on clay? Not sure there's much room for discussion here if you're just going to ignore his results. In the 90's I think Federer would make less finals but have a better chance of winning them when he got there. I don't see how players like Chang, Gomez, Kafelnikov, Agassi or even Moya are any better than Federer on clay.

I don't see anyone paying much attention to Murray's credentials as far as AO is concerned as he has yet to win the title. If you want to take that for example. Credentials are nothing if there's no certificate for it. That's the ultimate goal, innit.

I would take Federer clay results seriously if there's concrete evidence of him doing just as well in another era.

 

[NatF]

I don't see anyone paying much attention to Murray's credentials as far as AO is concerned as he has yet to win the title. If you want to take that for example. Credentials are nothing if there's no certificate for it. That's the ultimate goal, innit.

I would take Federer clay results seriously if there's concrete evidence of him doing just as well in another era.

Lol "concrete results" he just made a SF at the FO 13 years after his first. All players only have results in their own eras. That's just a cop out to avoid giving Federer any credit.

Murray has shown his ability on HC innumerable times and people definitely do factor his finals into his resume.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

The reasons why Fed is able to sustain this long on the tour is - he has no underlying health issues so he remains healthy; two, his servebot ability helped him last this long, Without his serve, which is still working, he retires back in 2012.

I used the comparative, i.e. Sampras has a better serve, didn't say RF's was average. Obviously RF has been riding on his serve for his entire career.

RF being long-lasting is two-fold: luck with health, and this era extending careers of players well beyond what they used to last. Nobody's retiring at 30 anymore, which used to be the standard age.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Lol "concrete results" he just made a SF at the FO 13 years after his first. All players only have results in their own eras. That's just a cop out to avoid giving Federer any credit.

I am actually quite amazed that there are "tennis fans" who don't realize that RF's clay career is actually quite stellar. It's only his "weakest" surface because hc and grass he's even better at, and because Nadal clay GOAT makes everyone chase after his clay achievements.

 

[tennis_pro]

Learn to argue within reason first. I'll bite then.

And anyone who follows tennis properly would know Sampras only became a S&V player later in his career - especially after 1996 or more so after 1998, when he was trying to reserve his energy as much as possible.

You are a waste of time when it comes to this kind of debate, TP and I say this with love.

I don't get it - so you're excusing Sampras for his results in 1997-2002 as he serve and volleyed more so obviously using basic logic it means you think that he'd have his best chance of beating Nadal if he stayed back. I'm sure a rallying Sampras would stand a great chance against peak Nadal on slow clay.

This is the thing - please tell me EXACTLY which version of Sampras (give me the exact season) where he would stand a good chance of beating Nadal. Don't cherry pick and take f.e. his baseline game from 1994 and his volleys from 2000 cause this is just next level stupid. Fed served better in 2015 than in 2006 f.e. but he played with what was available at the time. Just 2007 Fed with his current mindset would make a big difference. With Sampras even if you built his game based on when his different shots peaked he'd still get owned.

This is exactly what would've happened against peak Nadal. 1994 Sampras - gets his backhand abused. 2000 Sampras - gets passed left right and centre. I mean Sampras from 1998-2002 trying to beat peak Nadal on clay would make 2008 FO Fed look like a monster.

Oh and btw everything I said was true. Debunk one thing. ONE.

And the only reason I'm carrying on is because there is just no way I (or anyone) can lose a "Nadal would beat Sampras at the FO" debate. I mean come on.

 

[Zara]

Lol "concrete results" he just made a SF at the FO 13 years after his first. All players only have results in their own eras. That's just a cop out to avoid giving Federer any credit.

Murray has shown his ability on HC innumerable times and people definitely do factor his finals into his resume.

I don't think anyone in the right mindset can take 1 sample and apply to an entirely a different environment and expect the same or better results.

I will rest my case with that.

 

[Thierry Champion]

a

 

[topher]

Yes, it was.

And guess what? It was considered almost IMPOSSIBLE back then, hence why it wasn't talked about much (except on the WTA, ironically) not like now when homogenization made it so common that THREE players did it within just SEVEN years (2009-2016).

Winning all 4 was considered THE Holy Grail of tennis, so to imply Sampras had no interest in it is ludicrous.

Can you find a single instance of it being mentioned prior to 1999? Its funny, for it being a term, I can't any published record of it. You'd think they'd mention it when some female players achieved it.

 

[Zara]

Anyone with an amazing serve on fire has a chance against anyone at anytime. I don't know much about Sampras, but if Isner could be close why not Sampras. But never in the final of Roland Garros. If no one could beat him there there must be a reason. It can't be constant failure from the opponent. Isner probably loses without any drama if he faces Nadal in the final in the same year. Sampras beats Nadal in the quarters of Madrid, once, and celebrates with a huge party.

But Sampras and Isner aren't the same caliber players, are they? For one, Sampras has a much better game than Isner and a supremely clutch mentality. On top that, Sampras has the record of beating past RG champions at RG.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

Why did France win the 1998 World Cup?

Because Sampras didn't want to

Sampras poisoned Ronaldo.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Can you find a single instance of it being mentioned prior to 1999? Its funny, for it being a term, I can't any published record of it. You'd think they'd mention it when some female players achieved it.

What they CALLED it is totally irrelevant, unless you feel the need to nitpick with semantics.

But if you actually believe that tennis history starts with RF or the Big 3, that before 2000 tennis was just a bunch of talent-free journeymen playing a few matches and winning things randomly without having clear goals or being aware of what the biggest achievements are, then you've got a long way to go to catch up.

And if you expect me to do ALL the groundwork for you, for free, you're mistaken.

Btw... there was no internet until the mid-90s. You might wanna take that into consideration too. Try old tennis magazines and tennis books. You will have entered a whole new world of tennis history. You can't analyze current tennis if you're unacquainted with the olden golden tennis.

Talking about the Open Era, obviously.

 

[Zara]

I used the comparative, i.e. Sampras has a better serve, didn't say RF's was average. Obviously RF has been riding on his serve for his entire career.

RF being long-lasting is two-fold: luck with health, and this era extending careers of players well beyond what they used to last. Nobody's retiring at 30 anymore, which used to be the standard age.

If you take Federer's serve away, which he tends to rely on a great deal these days, he becomes your average Joe and wins nothing no matter how long you extend his stay on tour.

 

[Zara]

What they CALLED it is totally irrelevant, unless you feel the need to nitpick with semantics.

But if you actually believe that tennis history starts with RF or the Big 3, that before 2000 tennis was just a bunch of talent-free journeymen playing a few matches and winning things randomly without having clear goals or being aware of what the biggest achievements are, then you've got a long way to go to catch up.

And if you expect me to do ALL the groundwork for you, for free, you're mistaken.

Btw... there was no internet until the mid-90s. You might wanna take that into consideration too. Try old tennis magazines and tennis books. You will have entered a whole new world of tennis history. You can't analyze current tennis if you're unacquainted with the olden golden tennis.

Talking about the Open Era, obviously.

Ask helterskelter.

 

[Thierry Champion]

a

 

[E36BMWM3]

Didn't care about clay, didn't care about Masters or other smaller tournaments. So basically he cared about 15 matches per year. Also retired at barely 31. This guy had the focus of a typical millennial.

You sir, are a joke.

 

[Zara]

A RG champion is not an RG champion. Chang was a RG champion. Nadal is the ultimate one. The only way I can see Sampras (or any guy who is not an exceptional clay court player) winning is by bombing service winners and win his service games without effort, and then making a service winner on every single point in the tiebreaks, but this doesn't exist. When the ball is in play Nadal is just gonna tear Sampras left shoulder apart.

Again, saying Sampras can beat Nadal on clay is a completely different thing than saying he can beat him in the final of Roland Garros. Only 7 times on 12 times he lost one set. And we said peak for peak. Nadal was also very clutch when he was younger

Would you say Nadal struggles against big servers? Also, who did he beat in the finals apart from Federer who btw is not a clay specialist and it is his weakest surface.

Sampras could hold his serve on his own and take it to TB. He wouldn't go for rallies. That would be dumb - unless opportunity strikes; otherwise let go of the point as long as you are holding on your own. You said yourself, Isner came close but Sampras could come closer and perhaps, all the way.

Sampras is also mentally a huge clutch player, far better than Federer (forget Isner). If he made the final somehow, he'd smell blood. But I don't see it happening the first time though. I do think Pete would need a couple of more matches against Nadal before he got his hand over him. Just like Nadal did against Federer at Wimbledon. Sampras would also need to spend less energy before making the final with some easy draws like Federer had.

 

[DSH]

At RG 1996, number 1 seed Pete Sampras beat Gustafsson in 3 sets, Bruguera in 5 sets, Martin in 5 sets, Draper in 3 sets and Courier in 5 sets after been 2 sets down, before losing against eventual champion Yevgeny Kafelnikov in straight sets : 7-6 (7-4), 6-0, 6-2.

Number 6 seed Kafelnikov beat Blanco, Johansson, Mantilla, Clavet in straight sets, beat Krajicek in 4 sets in the quarterfinals (his only set who lost), beat Sampras in the semifinals, and Stich in the final in straight sets to conquer his only title in the French Open.

 

[Thierry Champion]

a

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Would you say Nadal struggles against big servers? Also, who did he beat in the finals apart from Federer who btw is not a clay specialist and it is his weakest surface.

Weak and weakest are two entirely different words.

Murray is the weakest of the Big 4. Does that mean he is weak though? Very far from it.

Federer excels on all surfaces. FIVE FO finales are more than most clay heroes of the past have. I've been trying to educate kids that RF is terrific on clay, but it seems to no avail in many cases. Some people still stubbornly insist that RF is weak on clay which is like saying Messi is weak in World Cups because he didn't win one. Not the best comparison, but you get the drift...

But the next level of crazy is to put down RF's clay game BELOW Sampras's! That's a first.

You must be the only person in the world to argue that 90s Sampras has better odds vs Nadal ON CLAY than Federer. That is laughable to the power of 100, and doesn't require a rebuttal, any more than we need a rebuttal for the claim that Pauly Shore is the greatest comedian of all time.

 

[Zara]

Again if he can make a service winner on every single point in the tiebreaks then I'm ok to say he can beat Nadal, 3-0 in the final of RG. But Nadal is gonna do what he has to do to win, just as much as Sampras is gonna do what he has to do. But I just can't believe he can. Not with a one handed backhand.

Nadal can struggle against big servers, but when there is clay under his feet he beats them.
Federer is amazing on clay. He has stamina, power, great topspin, no problem with the sliding. No one would have dare to say Federer and Djoko are not amazing clay courters if Nadal wasn't here to beat them. We would have praised their clay court game.

I am not sure what Nadal gonna do what he has to do.

I find the comparison wrong. What Federer was unable to do despite all that doesn't mean it applies to Sampras too.

I am not even sure if Federer is amazing on clay. He played during the weakest era field after all. I'd say they all took advantage of the relatively weak clay field.

 

[tennis_pro]

You sir, are a joke.

Ok, Mr. Bore.

 

[Zara]

Ok, Mr. Bore.

Did you notice? I got myself a cat too.

And my cat is better than yours.

 

[Thierry Champion]

a

 

[Zara]

Honestly we can debate forever since no one can bring any proof, of course. I'll just say that IMO it doesn't make any sense to say that a guy who couldn't reach the final of a tournament is also the guy who would beat in the final of the same tournament this one guy who never lost more than one set in 12 matches.

I can't be 100% sure. I am perfectly aligned with the Universe so as I see it, nothing is impossible. And I don't even think it's that big a deal.

Cheers.

 

[Thierry Champion]

a

 

[Dedans Penthouse]

........
2. Imagine RF saying in 2029 that he could have won "lots more FOs if only I was interested in it." Everyone would laugh, right?

Except that Federer is far more classy than Pete ever was or will be, to ever say that.

3. Did Pete actually say that? win at the FO would have been one of his greatest triumphs, so to suggest he wasn't interested (as much) is to completely fail at understanding the mentality of a great champion.

. .A definitive put-down followed by a question? . Well what is it?.....are you or are you not sure he said that since you had already declared him (prior to your question) to be lacking in class?

. .Pretty obvious what you're going for here......another insecure fedfanboi taking shots at another "he's not MY favourite male tennis idol" target.

. . "Er, i read in some other thread....where some other posters said that....."

 

[UnderratedSlam]

I am not sure what Nadal gonna do what he has to do.

I find the comparison wrong. What Federer was unable to do despite all that doesn't mean it applies to Sampras too.

I am not even sure if Federer is amazing on clay. He played during the weakest era field after all. I'd say they all took advantage of the relatively weak clay field.

There were plenty of journeymen in Sampras's era too. Many junkmeisters and mediocrities. You seem to assume that the 90s was star-studded and had 100 super-talents in the top 100.

 

[TimHenmanATG]

It's an absolute joke.

The idea that a top pro would skip or not take a GS seriously in the 1990s is ridiculous.

 

[Bhagi Katbamna]

The fact that he showed up means that he wanted to win it. I am a huge Sampras fan but I understand that.

 

[Thierry Champion]

a

 

[thrust]

What sort of logic is that? He succeeded on the surfaces that suited his game in his era, that doesn't mean that if he was more motivated he could do the same on the surface that didn't. In today's era with poly and current sports science etc...he'd probably have several deeper runs at the FO. But to boil Sampras' inability to win the French down to just his motivation is just ridiculous. It's like when Pete fans say he only stopped at 14 because he didn't have a higher number to aim for, or similar hyperbole about no player being able to best h2h because he wouldn't let them...the guy is either hilariously underrated and called a serve bot or hilariously overrated.

Pete was the best of his era on fast and indoor surfaces. He was an ATG player, however, he didn't seem to either have the physical stamina or patience to win on slow clay. He did win the Italian, which was then on faster clay courts than Paris, and had that great DC win on very slow clay in Moscow. Perhaps because he was playing of his country in Moscow gave him more incentive to win on that slow clay court. Whatever, all ATG players had a flaw in their game, none were or are perfect.

 

[The Blond Blur]

The only thing funnier than saying Pete didn't care about RG is saying that he could beat Rafa at RG The people who are brining up Isner are hilarious! The guy is basically 7 feet tall, with a 7.5 wingspan. He hits serves at almost 11 feet in the air and basically 4 feet into the court There is literally nothing Pete could do against Nadal. Try S&V? He'd break his neck watching passing shot after passing shot go by. Try to out grind Rafa plz.

 

[Purplemonster]

The reasons why Fed is able to sustain this long on the tour is - he has no underlying health issues so he remains healthy; two, his servebot ability helped him last this long, Without his serve, which is still working, he retires back in 2012.

Plus the Swiss pharmaceutical industry

 

[Purplemonster]

Pete was the best of his era on fast and indoor surfaces. He was an ATG player, however, he didn't seem to either have the physical stamina or patience to win on slow clay. He did win the Italian, which was then on faster clay courts than Paris, and had that great DC win on very slow clay in Moscow. Perhaps because he was playing of his country in Moscow gave him more incentive to win on that slow clay court. Whatever, all ATG players had a flaw in their game, none were or are perfect.

You are kidding right ? Isn’t Roger Federer supposed to be perfect, he has no flaws whatsoever.

 

[tennis_pro]

Did you notice? I got myself a cat too.

And my cat is better than yours.

After all these years of not posting your actual picture in the "your picture" thread now you do it as your avatar? The escalation is real.

You had a chance to see my picture for like a month too but I had it taken down.

 

[Sudacafan]

I think it’s too early to come up to a conclusion about this difficult matter.
We need like a dozen threads more to get a clear picture.

 

[ChrisRF]

Please don't mix the Frenchless Sampras with the FO champion and 5-time finalist together. Sampras was losing to all kinds of mugs after his 25th (!!!!!!) birthday. No excuses, Fed just reached a SF at the age of almost 38. Comparing Sampras to Federer on clay is an insult to Fed.

How a 14-time Slam champion gives up on a Slam after his 25th birthday is beyond me.

What’s even more strange: After being 25 he didn’t win a hardcourt Slam as well, except of course the last tournament in his career, the 2002 US Open when he was 31.

Between Australian Open 1997 and that US Open he "only" won Wimbledon.

I mainly blame Annacone for his late failures. He made him a total net-rusher who couldn’t rallye anymore. If you watch Sampras matches from 1990-1997 you see that he originally was an all-court player.

And still he never skipped RG in his career, so surely he did care about it. In fact, during his career he was known as someone who only carers about tennis and nothing besides it (in contrast to guys like Agassi etc.).

"Sampras didn’t care about tournament XY" was a strange metamorphosis he gone through years after his career when some of his fans were in need of lame excuses why Federer could overtake him in everything.

 

[tennis_pro]

What’s even more strange: After being 25 he didn’t win a hardcourt Slam as well, except of course the last tournament in his career, the 2002 US Open when he was 31.

Between Australian Open 1997 and that US Open he "only" won Wimbledon.

I mainly blame Annacone for his late failures. He made him a total net-rusher who couldn’t rallye anymore. If you watch Sampras matches from 1990-1997 you see that he originally was an all-court player.

And still he never skipped RG in his career, so surely he did care about it. In fact, during his career he was known as someone who only carers about tennis and nothing besides it (in contrast to guys like Agassi etc.).

"Sampras didn’t care about tournament XY" was a strange metamorphosis he gone through years after his career when some of his fans were in need of lame excuses why Federer could overtake him in everything.

Yeah, exactly.

Also, don't even get me started on who Federer lost all his FO finals to. Without the absolute hands down greatest clay courter of all time Fed is easily a 3-5 FO champion and up there with Lendl/Wilander/Kuerten in the top 5 clay courters of all time, wouldn't even rule out Fed challenging Borg's numbers on clay, that's how good he was on clay in his prime. Easily the 2nd best CC in 2005-2010/11ish depending on what you value (that 2011 FO SF win was pretty epic).

Even if you only consider 1992-1996 as prime Sampras on clay he struggled against tons of different players, he lost to
Agassi (won 9 games), Bruguera (pretty easy win including a breadstick), Courier, Schaller (who?), Kafelnikov. He'd beat one another was waiting in the next round, there are easily 10-15 guys in the draw capable of beating him. And if you take guys who won the FO in 1992-2000 they still have less FO's combined than Nadal alone.

Wasn't the case with prime Fed - he was reaching one final after another easily capable of beating every clay courter worth something at the time including Djokovic, Coria, Moya, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Del Potro, Soderling, Wawrinka, Monfils, Murray etc.

 

[DSH]

What’s even more strange: After being 25 he didn’t win a hardcourt Slam as well, except of course the last tournament in his career, the 2002 US Open when he was 31.

Between Australian Open 1997 and that US Open he "only" won Wimbledon.

I mainly blame Annacone for his late failures. He made him a total net-rusher who couldn’t rallye anymore. If you watch Sampras matches from 1990-1997 you see that he originally was an all-court player.

And still he never skipped RG in his career, so surely he did care about it. In fact, during his career he was known as someone who only carers about tennis and nothing besides it (in contrast to guys like Agassi etc.).

"Sampras didn’t care about tournament XY" was a strange metamorphosis he gone through years after his career when some of his fans were in need of lame excuses why Federer could overtake him in everything.

Sampras would have won the 1999 US Open if he had not been injured.
Agassi was lucky that time.

 

[tennis_pro]

Sampras would have won the 1999 US Open if he had not been injured.
Agassi was lucky that time.

Well yeah but if Agassi wasn't spent after the Becker match he could've easily won the 1995 US Open final, his form was insane and actually beat Sampras in a HC Slam final earlier that year.