Sampras best year?

Best Sampras year?

  • 1993

    Votes: 1 7.1%
  • 1994

    Votes: 9 64.3%
  • 1995

    Votes: 3 21.4%
  • 1996

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 1997

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 1998

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 1999

    Votes: 1 7.1%

  • Total voters
    14

NatF

Bionic Poster
For the entire year it's 1994. He was 77-12. He won Wimbledon, the Australian, the YEC and three Masters 1000. He won ten tournaments for the year out of 18 entered. And of course he was number one for the year.
He suffered an injury in 1994 as well. If not he might have a true ATG year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pc1

Xavier G

Hall of Fame
Yes, 1994 for me too, just ahead of 97.

In 94, Pete won the AO, Wimbledon, the Indian Wells and Miami double, the YEC and also Rome on clay. He made the quarters at Roland Garros too.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Yes, 1994 for me too, just ahead of 97.

In 94, Pete won the AO, Wimbledon, the Indian Wells and Miami double, the YEC and also Rome on clay. He made the quarters at Roland Garros too.
He had a good clay court year
 

SamprasisGOAT

Professional
Nah not 94 for me. I much prefer the uso over the Australian open. That's why I have 1995 over 94.

I think the older Nike oscillate Pete was a total beast and better then the Sergio Pete.
 
F

Fedfan34

Guest
i think his peak level was 1999 queens club to just before the uso.

But archivement wise I think maybe 1995

Overall I'll go with 1999

What do you guys think
Wasn't 94 the year he won 3 in a row? Wimbledon, US Open, then '94 Aussie Open? So I'd say that stretch was his best.
 

Heuristic

Hall of Fame
But 1999 was a great year! Sampras beat Agassi so concincingly in that Wimbledon final. The serve was sharp, returns were on, and his playing consistency high.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
The French, ANY year!
While it's a negative Sampras could play fantastic matches on clay. I do think his blood disease that affected his stamina was a huge factor on Sampras not winning the French. At that he won the Italian in 1994 which is a big title.
 
Last edited:

thrust

Hall of Fame
Well it's a negative Sampras could play fantastic matches on clay. I do think his blood disease that affected his stamina was a huge factor on Sampras not winning the French. At that he won the Italian in 1994 which is a big title.
I agree. The Italian though was played on faster clay courts than Paris, from what I have read. The fact that Pete beat Becker in the final hints that the courts were faster than usual that year. IMO, Pete's greatest achievement was the year he beat the Russians in Russia, winning both singles matches and the doubles on a purposely very slow clay court. Pete collapsed after winning his final singles match. I think from extreme cramps.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
I agree. The Italian though was played on faster clay courts than Paris, from what I have read. The fact that Pete beat Becker in the final hints that the courts were faster than usual that year. IMO, Pete's greatest achievement was the year he beat the Russians in Russia, winning both singles matches and the doubles on a purposely very slow clay court. Pete collapsed after winning his final singles match. I think from extreme cramps.
I agree. He was amazing in beating the Russian team that year.
 

Gizo

Hall of Fame
His peak level of play was in 1993-1994. I guess that his 1994 season would rank over his 1993 one, as in 1994 he won 2 more titles overall (10 vs. 8), the YEC (in 1993 he lost in the final to Stich), and 2 more Super 9 titles (3 vs. 1). Thanks to his Italian Open title in 1994, he won big titles on every surface that year.

Still going into the RG in 1994, after he won that title in Rome and was looking to hold all 4 majors at the same time, I personally only made him the 4th favourite to triumph in Paris. I thought that the defending champion Bruguera, the young sensation Medvedev who had won the Monte-Carlo and Hamburg titles that year on the back of his Barcelona title and RG semi-final run in 1993, and Courier who was bidding to reach a 4th straight RG final, were all bigger title favourites than him.

It’s crazy that all 4 of those players were in the same (top) half of the draw and therefore had to face each other in the 2 quarters and then the 2 winners in the resulting semi. Furthermore Muster (not a beast on clay yet but still won 3 titles on the surface that year) and Agassi (posted a poor 4-4 W/L record on clay that year but had reached 2 finals and 2 more semis in his last 5 appearances at RG) also landed in the top half of the draw, facing each other in the 2nd round. So that was an extremely top heavy draw for sure. At the women’s US Open in 2007, 5 out of the 6 title favourites landed in the top half of the draw. I might make a thread on this one day.

I agree that Sampras’s 1994 could have been even better were it not for his ankle injury in the Summer. He had to withdraw from all 4 US Open lead-up tournaments that he was scheduled to play in, and went into New York completely undercooked and not close to being fully match fit. He physically hit the wall during his 4th round defeat against Yzaga. Had it not been for that injury, he could well have ended that season with 3 majors and 12-13 titles overall.
 

Gizo

Hall of Fame
But 1999 was a great year! Sampras beat Agassi so concincingly in that Wimbledon final. The serve was sharp, returns were on, and his playing consistency high.
I think that Sampras’s level of play during his 24 match and 4 title winning run during the summer of 1999, when he straight settled Agassi 3 times in Wimbledon, LA and Cincy, was his best standard of tennis since 1993-1994. He was no longer burdened by the huge pressure (mostly from himself) of chasing the year end no. 1 record like he had been in 1998. So he was playing more freely and loosely.

He would have been the huge US Open title favourite had he not injured his back and been in the draw in New York. But of course who cares about a tennis tournament, when he ended up meeting Bridgette Wilson during his injury layoff. That injury was the best thing that ever happened to him.

Then of course he played himself into form during the YEC, culminating in his one-sided victory over Agassi in the final. Agassi was so annoyed that he refused to take the microphone and address the crowd afterwards.
 
Last edited:
1994: 2 majors, 3 masters (out of 5 played I think) including the IW Miami Double, his lone clay masters of his entire career, a 77-12 win loss record, 10 titles.

1993 and 1995 would be close seconds
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Ripple effect could extend that to the AO as well - Agassi might be too shot mentally to compete at his best.
Lendl once mentioned that when he lost to Pat Cash in a previous tournament prior to the 1987 Wimbledon I believe that it was a psychological boast for Cash and gave him the confidence to beat Lendl at Wimbledon.
 

Gizo

Hall of Fame
I also think that Sampras would have won that USO in 1994 had it not been for ankle injury after Wimbledon. He switched shoe / clothing contracts from Sergio Tacchini to Nike, and his new Nike shoes didn’t agree with his feet.

He had won 4 out of the last 5 majors from Wimbledon 1993 - Wimbledon 1994. His Wimbledon 1994 title was already his 8th title of the season. Since Connors in 1974, no player has won more official titles in a season by the end of Wimbledon, although Mac in 1984, Federer in 2005 and Djokovic in 2011 also won their 8th official titles of those seasons at Wimbledon.

That was the only year that he failed to win the USO from 1993-1996, so a decade later Federer could have been trying to topple Sampras’s 4 consecutive USO titles instead of Mac and Lendl’s 3 in a row.

As well as owning Agassi at the USO (Agassi came no closer to taking him to a 5th set in 4 attempts at the USO, than he did to beating Agassi in 2 attempts at the AO), he won both their hard court matches that year in Miami and Osaka.
 
I also think that Sampras would have won that USO in 1994 had it not been for ankle injury after Wimbledon. He switched shoe / clothing contracts from Sergio Tacchini to Nike, and his new Nike shoes didn’t agree with his feet.
...But how foolish that was, making such an important switch when playing at his best? As it is written, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Can't help but think of it as a stupid move, endangering his tennis for more money. Same as players playing IPTL at the start of the year and then underperforming at the AO (Fedr 2015 :mad:). Pete pretty much ruined a quarter of his tennis year between Wimbledon and the fall indoor season.
 

Heuristic

Hall of Fame
i think his peak level was 1999 queens club to just before the uso.

But archivement wise I think maybe 1995

Overall I'll go with 1999

What do you guys think
1999 tss.. his groundstrokes were very erratic by then. I'll go with 95 but really 90-95 are his golden years.
 

SaintPetros

Hall of Fame
1999 tss.. his groundstrokes were very erratic by then. I'll go with 95 but really 90-95 are his golden years.
94 in terms of accomplishments, 3 slams in a row, best winning record against strong peeps, only lost at the Open because of an obvious injury etc.
95 in terms of moral accomplishments, crushing Agassi in the biggest match of the year and sending him into semi-retirement.
 

SamprasisGOAT

Professional
1999 tss.. his groundstrokes were very erratic by then. I'll go with 95 but really 90-95 are his golden years.
His ground strokes aren’t very erratic in the Wimbledon, queens, Los Angeles and Cincinnati tournaments in 1999. They are the best of his career.
 

SaintPetros

Hall of Fame
His ground strokes aren’t very erratic in the Wimbledon, queens, Los Angeles and Cincinnati tournaments in 1999. They are the best of his career.
His backhand was starting to get funky if I remember right. I think it was much more stable in the early 90s.
 

Thetouch

Professional
I guess the 94-95 and 97 Sampras was more fluent in his overall game with better movements as well but the 99 Sampras looked more lethal. It's a shame he missed the AO and US Open that year. He won 5 titles within 5 months and beat Agassi in the YEC the same way he did in Wimbledon. After his injury he declined and you could tell he was all about Wimbledon and the US Open. It's kind of surreal that his last 4 titles he won were the YEC, Key Biscayne, Wimbledon and the US Open, spread over a span of 2 years. He could still win the big ones, while not being that successful anymore at the smaller ones.
 

Tshooter

G.O.A.T.
Yes, 1994 for me too, just ahead of 97.

In 94, Pete won the AO, Wimbledon, the Indian Wells and Miami double, the YEC and also Rome on clay. He made the quarters at Roland Garros too.
In 1994 I saw him lose to Yzaga at the USO. It was a great match. Just not for Pete.
 

Tshooter

G.O.A.T.
He was badly injured there though.
I was sitting in the front row. I must have missed his “obvious injury.” In any case, it was a great match and by the fifth it achieved that epic atmosphere that you could get on Armstrong that has never really been recreated on Ashe despite what the marketing department tells you.
 

SaintPetros

Hall of Fame
I was sitting in the front row. I must have missed his “obvious injury.” In any case, it was a great match and by the fifth it achieved that epic atmosphere that you could get on Armstrong that has never been recreated on Ashe despite what the marketing department tells you.
Yes, you must have, but thankfully the New York Times did not.
Feel free to check it out:
https://www.nytimes.com/1994/09/07/sports/us-open-94-lots-of-pain-little-gain-sampras-upset-by-yzaga.html

And that does sound like an amazing atmosphere. I wonder what the Corretja match was like.
 

SaintPetros

Hall of Fame
I got news for you. If the fake, failing NYT reporter was even at the match he/she was sitting way up in the press box watching the match on a little TV screen. ;)
:)
When/if you bother to read the article in question, you'll see a quote from Jaimie himself stating he could see Pete was exhausted, one from Pete saying he was out of shape, and then documentation of the tendinitis he'd developed in his ankle over the summer and the footblisters that formed during the match.
 

Tshooter

G.O.A.T.
:)
When/if you bother to read the article in question, you'll see a quote from Jaimie himself stating he could see Pete was exhausted, one from Pete saying he was out of shape, and then documentation of the tendinitis he'd developed in his ankle over the summer and the footblisters that formed during the match.
I did. Yup, Pete was totally worn down by the end.

The writer is describing a very common occurrence where one or both players are completely worn down by the end of a 5 set match. Yzaga was also in bad shape by the end. It was a brutal 5 set classic. Like I said, a great match. Pete lost.
 
Last edited:

travlerajm

G.O.A.T.
I believe Sampras has the best ever win percentage in 5-setters for any player with 30+ wins in such matches. So I'll give Pete a pass for running out of gas a few times early in his career.
 

BorgTheGOAT

Hall of Fame
I believe Sampras has the best ever win percentage in 5-setters for any player with 30+ wins in such matches. So I'll give Pete a pass for running out of gas a few times early in his career.
Sampras is 33-15 in five set matches. I think this record belongs to Borg who is 26-6.
 
Top