Sampras incredibly defeated 2 Past Multi-Champions of a Grand Slam at 4 Grand Slams in his career

[McEnroeisanartist]

In the last 40 years...men who defeated 2 past multi-champions of a Grand Slam at the time of their match.

Curren - 1985 Wimbledon - defeated 3X Wimbledon Champion McEnroe and 2X Wimbledon Champion Connors
Lendl - 1985 US Open - defeated 5X US Open Champion Connors and 4X US Open Champion McEnroe
Lendl - 1987 US Open - defeated 4X US Open Champion McEnroe and 5X US Open Champion Connors
Sampras - 1990 US Open - defeated 3X US Open Champion Lendl and 4X US Open Champion McEnroe
Stich - 1991 Wimbledon - defeated 2X Wimbledon Champion Edberg and 3X Wimbledon Champion Becker
Agassi - 1992 Wimbledon - defeated 3X Wimbledon Champion Becker and 3X Wimbledon Champion Becker
Sampras - 1994 Australian Open - defeated 2X Australian Open Champion Lendl and 2X Australian Open Champion Courier
Sampras - 1996 French Open - defeated 2X French Open Champion Bruguera and 2X French Open Courier
Sampras - 2001 US Open - defeated 2X US Open Champion Rafter and 2X US Open Champion Agassi

 

[Deleted member 771911]

GOAT

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

good old times

 

[FRV4]

Sampras may very well have been the true GOAT..... too bad buddy, it's over with

 

[daggerman]

Agassi - 1992 Wimbledon - defeated 3X Wimbledon Champion Becker and 3X Wimbledon Champion Becker

Becker and McEnroe*

 

[Sampras-Bruguera 1993]

Sampras may very well have been the true GOAT..... too bad buddy, it's over with

Sampras can say he was the absolute BEST of his era ... roger on the other hand? LOL!!!!

 

[Jokervich]

Sampras feels like ancient history at this point. The game played completely different back then - it was all serve and volleying, with average rally length 2-3 shots, and players retired in their early 30's lmao.

 

[Yugram]

Sampras can say he was the absolute BEAST of his era ... roger on the other hand? LOL!!!!

Hello PeteTroller

 

[Deleted member 771911]

Oh, do we have the Pete guy back!

 

[Kralingen]

Hasn't this happened like 15 times since the Big 3 era though?

I know for a fact Djokovic, Federer, Nadal, and Wawrinka have all done it

Edit: sorry, misread - thought the distinction was that you had to have beaten 2 multi slam winners in the same slam.

 

[ChrisRF]

Well, to "achieve" this at first he had to take care that some of those others would win the 2 titles during his era. Nadal at RG failed to do that.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Great achievement by PETE.

Interesting that none of the big 3 have achieved this at W or US (the slams they've all won at least twice).

 

[SonnyT]

I'm not impressed, at all, by those criteria.

Take Curren in '85. Yes, Connors and McEnroe had won 9 USO's by '85; but, most importantly, none afterwards. Meaning they were way past their prime, by the time Curren got to them!

Same thing with Sampras in '01. Rafter and Agassi won all their USO titles before '01. I bet, if you go down the list, very few of the 'victims' ever won that Slam again, after that date!

If Medvedev beats Nadal and Djokovic (combined 7 titles, so far) 5 years from now at USO, that might not impressive at all if those guys are all washed up, and just hanging around for one last title!

 

[TheNachoMan]

PETE’s USO 90 win is better than all of the big 3’s USO wins combined

 

[Dedans Penthouse]

Sampras feels like ancient history at this point. The game played completely different back then

- it was all serve and volleying,

with average rally length 2-3 shots,

and players retired in their early 30's lmao.

True.

Agassi....Courrier....Chang....Brugera....Alex Corretja....Kafelnikov....Carlos Moya....Cédric Pioline....Rios....
.

 

[SonnyT]

PETE’s USO 90 win is better than all of the big 3’s USO wins combined

In '90 Sampras defeated McEnroe SF and Agassi F. Mac was 6 years removed from his last Slam, meaning he had been washed up for a long time! It was 2 years before Agassi would win his first Slam, meaning he was a long way from being a seasoned Slam champion! At that USO, Mac was unranked; Agassi was ranked 4th. In retrospect it wasn't that impressive!

In '11 Djokovic defeated Federer SF and Nadal F. By that time, Federer had won 16, and would win 4 more. Nadal had won 10, and would win 10 more. They already were great Slam champions, and would continue to be so for many years! They were ranked # 2 and 3, just behind Djokovic himself.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Too bad he was exposed by the strong era of Federer, Roddick, Hewitt and Safin and had to call it quits very early.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Too bad he was exposed by the strong era of Federer, Roddick, Hewitt and Safin and had to call it quits very early.

Pete retired at an average age for tennis players of that era, he was 31. Edberg, Becker, Wilander and many others retired at that age or earlier.

 

[zuluzazu]

Fed came the closest to do this in wimby 2019. Imagine a 38 yr old doing that. That would have been truly epic.

 

[Kralingen]

In '11 Djokovic defeated Federer SF and Nadal F. By that time, Federer had won 16, and would win 4 more. Nadal had won 10, and would win 10 more. They already were great Slam champions, and would continue to be so for many years! They were ranked # 2 and 3, just behind Djokovic himself.

The fact that Djokovic defeated Federer-Murray at the Australian Open, #1 Nadal at Wimbledon, and then Federer-Nadal at USO in 2011 is truly legendary. Federer and Nadal were also defending champions at all 3 tournaments.

There’s definitely been higher difficulty in slam finals but beating a prime Big 3 player 4 times on the way to 3 grand slam victories is still the most impressive stretch I can think of in a calendar year from a difficulty perspective.

 

[Start da Game]

Sampras may very well have been the true GOAT..... too bad buddy, it's over with

winning the 96 roland garros would have sealed it imo.........15 slams on all surfaces in such a vastly diverse era would have been epic.........pete was ahead of his time like paul morphy in chess.........

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

Hasn't this happened like 15 times since the Big 3 era though?

I know for a fact Djokovic, Federer, Nadal, and Wawrinka have all done it

Edit: sorry, misread - thought the distinction was that you had to have beaten 2 multi slam winners in the same slam.

You mean that muppet being resurrected Frankenstein style?

 

[Gizo]

Sampras's 1990 US Open title run, only a few weeks after his 19th birthday was incredible. Beating Lendl who largely played from the baseline and came to the net around 30 times across 5 sets, then McEnroe who serve volleyed on 100% of 1st serves and almost 100% of 2nd serves minus a handful of points, was some achievement. Then of course to top it off he convincingly beat Agassi in the final who pretty much exclusively played from the baseline only coming to the net around 5 times.

So he was getting better and better as the tournament progressed, and adapted to facing elite opponents with notably different playing styles.

 

[40-15 still haunts me]

Sampras can say he was the absolute BEST of his era ... roger on the other hand? LOL!!!!

Sampras was playing people who aren’t even in the same category as what Fed has played. Most club players these days would destroy the likes of what Sampras had to play, the game has moved on

 

[SonnyT]

Pete retired at an average age for tennis players of that era, he was 31. Edberg, Becker, Wilander and many others retired at that age or earlier.

He was also playing with incredible pain near the end, so did Agassi, Lendl and countless others! The only equivalent in the more modern era was Murray, who would've been forced to retire, if he'd to play in an earlier era.

That's what the latest racquet and medical technology do; they lengthen careers and enable them to play with much less pain, and near their potential!

 

[MadariKatu]

This doesn't take any merit from Wawrinka's grand slam titles.

Fed came the closest to do this in wimby 2019. Imagine a 38 yr old doing that. That would have been truly epic.

And would have been the only one ever to beat Nadal and Djokovic in a slam back to back.

 

[SonnyT]

Fed came the closest to do this in wimby 2019. Imagine a 38 yr old doing that. That would have been truly epic.

Yep, Nadal and Djokovic were in the middle of winning all Slams left and right! And Federer almost pulled off what would've been the most incredible Slam SF/F combo in history! Certainly far eclipsing Djokovic's own '11 USO combo; and Wawrinka's 15 RG combo. Remember Wawa's victims, Federer and Djokovic, combine for all of 2 RG crowns!

 

[Frenchy-Player]

 

[SonnyT]

The criterion by the OP is about beating past champions, so the bar is set pretty low. The higher bar is about beating future champions!

Take Djokovic's 11 USO tourney win. It doesn't qualify because by then Nadal had only won 1 USO. But he went on to win 3 more USO. Obviously beating a 3-time future champion on the rise, is generally much, much harder than beating a 3-time past champion on the decline.

So, how often has this happen: at a slam, a player beat 2 future champions, each of whom would win once at that Slam (never mind, twice)?

Under the new criterion, Djokovic's 11 USO doesn't qualify either, because Federer never won again at USO. But Federer's 12 Wim does qualify because both Djokovic and Murray won Wimbledon afterwards!

 

[Jason Swerve]

The criterion by the OP is about beating past champions, so the bar is set pretty low. The higher bar is about beating future champions!

Take Djokovic's 11 USO tourney win. It doesn't qualify because by then Nadal had only won 1 USO. But he went on to win 3 more USO. Obviously beating a 3-time future champion on the rise, is generally much, much harder than beating a 3-time past champion on the decline.

So, how often has this happen: at a slam, a player beat 2 future champions, each of whom would win once at that Slam (never mind, twice)?

Under the new criterion, Djokovic's 11 USO doesn't qualify either, because Federer never won again at USO. But Federer's 12 Wim does qualify because both Djokovic and Murray won Wimbledon afterwards!

You think they care to hear that? That requires research and the application of context. Much easier to say, "He's the GOAT," and keep it shuffling.

 

[SonnyT]

Sampras's 1990 US Open title run, only a few weeks after his 19th birthday was incredible. Beating Lendl who largely played from the baseline and came to the net around 30 times across 5 sets, then McEnroe who serve volleyed on 100% of 1st serves and almost 100% of 2nd serves minus a handful of points, was some achievement. Then of course to top it off he convincingly beat Agassi in the final who pretty much exclusively played from the baseline only coming to the net around 5 times.

So he was getting better and better as the tournament progressed, and adapted to facing elite opponents with notably different playing styles.

The most impressive about Sampras run was his age. The second most impressive was his win over Lendl. By 1990, McEnroe was 6 years removed from his last Slam; by comparison, Federer right now is only 3 years removed from his last slam. Agassi wasn't yet ready to be a Slam champion until 2 years into the future!

 

[6august]

Djoker did it at the Uso11, 5time Roger and soon to be 4time Rafa.

 

[Gizo]

The most impressive about Sampras run was his age. The second most impressive was his win over Lendl. By 1990, McEnroe was 6 years removed from his last Slam; by comparison, Federer right now is only 3 years removed from his last slam. Agassi wasn't yet ready to be a Slam champion until 2 years into the future!

McEnroe looked to be playing very well at the US Open going into his SF against Sampras, and was delighted that Sampras had taken Lendl out for him, with him regarding a SF against the 19 year old upstart to be the easier match-up for him. He still served (and his 1st serve % was high) and volleyed well in that match himself, but Sampras produced a superb clinic of returns and passing shots.

And Agassi enjoyed numerous big wins over Becker and Edberg in 1990 and was still the heavy favourite going into the USO final; many people considered it a formality that he would beat Sampras. But Sampras produced the best display of power and athleticism that I'd seen from any player at the time, serving and volleying well, looking steady from the baseline (to Agassi's surprise) and hitting more winners from the back of the court than Agassi did etc.

Adapting to facing an elite serve volleyer in a major semi-final, and then facing an elite baseliner in a major final 24 hours later, was a challenge that no players have had to worry about in modern times with the rapidly shrinking variety in playing styles, all-round homogenisation, and players not approaching the net much between the coin toss and the post-match handshake ! The challenge of needing to counter world class opponents with such drastically different styles and to answer different questions, cannot be underestimated. Facing opponents with different patterns of play from the baseline doesn't really compare to that.

In those matches, Sampras produced a well and evenly balanced ratio of forehand baseline, backhand baseline, forehand volley and backhand volley winners, among the most evenly balanced ratios of winners at the baseline compared to those at the net that I'd seen from any player, so he displayed the text book definition of wonderful all-court tennis in those matches.

 

[Phoenix1983]

The most impressive about Sampras run was his age. The second most impressive was his win over Lendl. By 1990, McEnroe was 6 years removed from his last Slam; by comparison, Federer right now is only 3 years removed from his last slam. Agassi wasn't yet ready to be a Slam champion until 2 years into the future!

I think you’ll find Agassi was ready to become a slam champ in 1990. It’s just that PETE wouldn’t allow him to take the final step.

 

[Hitman]

Feel for those who never got to see The King of Swing during his heyday, and only read about him, or what selected highlights.

Saw his run from start to finish...incredible.